pcra hearing in Pennsylvania

2025Commonwealth v. Jones, 942 A.2d 903, 906 (Pa. Super. -4- J-S25027-25 2008).

2025Commonwealth v. Jones, 942 A.2d 903, 906 (Pa. Super. -4- J-S25027-25 2008).

2024See Wah, supra. At the PCRA hearing, plea counsel testified that he made no such misleading statement related to, or promise of, a sentence limited to house arrest or probation, N.T., 8/22/23, at 22, and the PCRA court found this testimony credible.

2024See Wah, supra. At the PCRA hearing, plea counsel testified that he made no such misleading statement related to, or promise of, a sentence limited to house arrest or probation, N.T., 8/22/23, at 22, and the PCRA court found this testimony credible.

2023Those three narrow exceptions to the one-year time-bar are: when the government has interfered with the petitioner’s ability to present the claim, when the petitioner has recently discovered facts upon which his PCRA claim is predicated, or when either the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania or the Supreme Court of the United States has recognized a new constitutional right and made that right retroactive. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i-iii); see also Commonwealth v. Brandon, 51 A.3d 231, 233-234 (Pa. Super. 2012).

2020Those three narrow exceptions to the one-year time-bar are: when the government has interfered with petitioner’s ability to present the claim, when petitioner has recently discovered facts upon which his PCRA claim is predicated, or when either the Pennsylvania Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court has recognized a new constitutional right and made that right retroactive. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i-iii); Commonwealth v. Brandon, 51 A.3d 231, 233-234 (Pa.Super. 2012).

2025Additionally, “[a] petitioner is not entitled to a PCRA hearing as a matter of right; the PCRA court can decline to hold a hearing if there is no genuine issue concerning any material fact and the petitioner is not entitled to post- conviction collateral relief, and no purpose would be served by any further proceedings.” Commonwealth v. Taylor, 933 A.2d 1035, 1040 (Pa. Super. 2007).

2025Additionally, “[a] petitioner is not entitled to a PCRA hearing as a matter of right; the PCRA court can decline to hold a hearing if there is no genuine issue concerning any material fact and the petitioner is not entitled to post- conviction collateral relief, and no purpose would be served by any further proceedings.” Commonwealth v. Taylor, 933 A.2d 1035, 1040 (Pa. Super. 2007).

2026Detective Jack Slattery testified at the PCRA hearing that there was no reason not to have obtained the phone records sooner, because the absence of Talley’s phone from the scene suggested that it had been taken by the killer to hide incriminating evidence 129 See (Raymond) Johnson, 966 A.2d at 535-36 . 130 See Commonwealth v. Williams, 141 A.3d 440, 463 (Pa. 2016) (determining “whether counsel’s decision had any basis reasonably designed to effectuate his client’s interest” “cannot be a hindsight evaluation of counsel’s performance, but requires an examination of whether counsel made an infor

2026Detective Jack Slattery testified at the PCRA hearing that there was no reason not to have obtained the phone records sooner, because the absence of Talley’s phone from the scene suggested that it had been taken by the killer to hide incriminating evidence 129 See (Raymond) Johnson, 966 A.2d at 535-36 . 130 See Commonwealth v. Williams, 141 A.3d 440, 463 (Pa. 2016) (determining “whether counsel’s decision had any basis reasonably designed to effectuate his client’s interest” “cannot be a hindsight evaluation of counsel’s performance, but requires an examination of whether counsel made an infor

2025“A PCRA hearing is not a matter of right, and the PCRA court may decline ____________________________________________ 5 See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b) (nonprecedential decisions of Superior Court filed after May 1, 2019 may be cited for their persuasive value). - 21 - J-S31025-23 to hold a hearing if there is no genuine issue concerning any material fact and the defendant is not entitled to relief as a matter of law.” Commonwealth v. Morrison, 878 A.2d 102, 109 (Pa. Super. 2005) (en banc).

2025“A PCRA hearing is not a matter of right, and the PCRA court may decline ____________________________________________ 5 See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b) (nonprecedential decisions of Superior Court filed after May 1, 2019 may be cited for their persuasive value). - 21 - J-S31025-23 to hold a hearing if there is no genuine issue concerning any material fact and the defendant is not entitled to relief as a matter of law.” Commonwealth v. Morrison, 878 A.2d 102, 109 (Pa. Super. 2005) (en banc).

2023See Commonwealth v. Koehler, 614 Pa. 159 , 36 A.3d 121, 146 (2012) (faulting a PCRA petitioner for declining to question trial counsel at the PCRA hearing about the lack of a strategic basis for failing to object).

2023See Commonwealth v. Koehler, 614 Pa. 159 , 36 A.3d 121, 146 (2012) (faulting a PCRA petitioner for declining to question trial counsel at the PCRA hearing about the lack of a strategic basis for failing to object).

2021A PCRA petitioner is "not entitled to a PCRA hearing as a matter of right." Commonwealth v. Johnson, 945 A.2d 185, 188 (Pa. Super.

2021A PCRA petitioner is "not entitled to a PCRA hearing as a matter of right." Commonwealth v. Johnson, 945 A.2d 185, 188 (Pa. Super.

2021See Commonwealth v. Mason, 130 A.3d 601, 618 (Pa. 2015) (“A PCRA claim is waived if the petitioner could have raised it but failed to do so before trial, at trial, during unitary review, or on appeal or in a prior [PCRA] proceeding”); see also Commonwealth v. Dennis, 950 A.2d 945, 954 (Pa. 2008) (“Where claims of trial counsel ineffectiveness . . . could previously have been litigated . . . the only way a petitioner can successfully mount a challenge to the effectiveness of counsel is to assert a “layered” claim of ineffectiveness”).

2021See Commonwealth v. Mason, 130 A.3d 601, 618 (Pa. 2015) (“A PCRA claim is waived if the petitioner could have raised it but failed to do so before trial, at trial, during unitary review, or on appeal or in a prior [PCRA] proceeding”); see also Commonwealth v. Dennis, 950 A.2d 945, 954 (Pa. 2008) (“Where claims of trial counsel ineffectiveness . . . could previously have been litigated . . . the only way a petitioner can successfully mount a challenge to the effectiveness of counsel is to assert a “layered” claim of ineffectiveness”).

2022Further, “a petitioner is not entitled to a PCRA hearing as a matter of right; the PCRA court can decline to hold a hearing if there is no genuine issue concerning any material fact, the petitioner is not entitled to PCRA relief, and no purpose would be served by any further proceedings.” Commonwealth v. Shaw, 217 A.3d 265, 269 (Pa.Super. 2019). -3- J-S10026-22 Fenner challenges the effectiveness of trial counsel.

2022Further, “a petitioner is not entitled to a PCRA hearing as a matter of right; the PCRA court can decline to hold a hearing if there is no genuine issue concerning any material fact, the petitioner is not entitled to PCRA relief, and no purpose would be served by any further proceedings.” Commonwealth v. Shaw, 217 A.3d 265, 269 (Pa.Super. 2019). -3- J-S10026-22 Fenner challenges the effectiveness of trial counsel.

2026There is no absolute right to a PCRA hearing, and we review dismissal without a hearing “to determine whether the PCRA court erred in concluding that there were no genuine issues of material fact and in denying relief without an evidentiary hearing.” Commonwealth v. Burton, 121 A.3d 1063, 1067 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en banc).

2026There is no absolute right to a PCRA hearing, and we review dismissal without a hearing “to determine whether the PCRA court erred in concluding that there were no genuine issues of material fact and in denying relief without an evidentiary hearing.” Commonwealth v. Burton, 121 A.3d 1063, 1067 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en banc).

2024Ford, 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2012). “[A] petitioner is not entitled to a PCRA hearing as a matter of right; the PCRA court can decline to hold a hearing if there is no genuine issue concerning any material fact and the petitioner is not entitled to post- conviction collateral relief, and no purpose would be served by any further proceedings.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 121 A.3d 1049 , 1052 (Pa. Super. 2015); Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(1).

2024Ford, 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2012). “[A] petitioner is not entitled to a PCRA hearing as a matter of right; the PCRA court can decline to hold a hearing if there is no genuine issue concerning any material fact and the petitioner is not entitled to post- conviction collateral relief, and no purpose would be served by any further proceedings.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 121 A.3d 1049 , 1052 (Pa. Super. 2015); Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(1).

2024Commonwealth v. Diggs, 220 A.3d 1112, 1116, 1118 (Pa. Super. 2019) (Section 9545(b)(1)(ii) newly discovered fact exception applied to PCRA claim that witness recanted testimony where witness signed affidavit recanting testimony one month before defendant filed PCRA petition asserting a claim based on that recantation); Commonwealth v. Medina, 92 A.3d 1210, 1214, 1216-18 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc), appeal dismissed as improvidently granted, 140 A.3d 675 (Pa. 2016) (PCRA claim that witness recanted testimony was timely under Section 9545(b)(1)(ii) where witness, less than 60 days before defenda

2023Diggs, 220 A.3d at 1116, 1118 (Section 9545(b)(1)(ii) newly discovered fact exception applied to PCRA claim that witness recanted testimony where witness signed affidavit recanting testimony one month before defendant filed PCRA petition asserting a claim based on that recantation); Commonwealth v. Medina, 92 A.3d 1210, 1214, 1216-18 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc), appeal dismissed as improvidently granted, 140 A.3d 675 (Pa. 2016) (PCRA claim that witness recanted testimony was timely under Section 9545(b)(1)(ii) where witness, less than 60 days before defendant filed PCRA petition, revealed to d

2019Commonwealth v. Lantzy, 736 A.2d 564, 572 (Pa. 1999) (footnote omitted, emphasis added).4 At the PCRA hearing, Appellant testified that, at the end of his trial on August 28, 2013, he told his trial attorney, Bruce Wolf, Esq., to file an appeal on his behalf to contest his conviction for gun possession.

2019Commonwealth v. Lantzy, 736 A.2d 564, 572 (Pa. 1999) (footnote omitted, emphasis added).4 At the PCRA hearing, Appellant testified that, at the end of his trial on August 28, 2013, he told his trial attorney, Bruce Wolf, Esq., to file an appeal on his behalf to contest his conviction for gun possession.

2021Medina, 209 A.3d at 999 -1000 (citing Commonwealth v. Postie, 200 A.3d 1015, 1022 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc) (“A petitioner is not entitled to a PCRA hearing as a matter of right; the PCRA court can decline to hold a hearing if there is no genuine issue ____________________________________________ 12Appellant does not argue cumulative prejudice from individual claims.

2021Medina, 209 A.3d at 999 -1000 (citing Commonwealth v. Postie, 200 A.3d 1015, 1022 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc) (“A petitioner is not entitled to a PCRA hearing as a matter of right; the PCRA court can decline to hold a hearing if there is no genuine issue ____________________________________________ 12Appellant does not argue cumulative prejudice from individual claims.

2024Fisher, 813 A.2d at 771 ; see also Commonwealth v. Selenski, 228 A.3d 8, 17 (Pa. Super. 2020) (rejecting an ineffectiveness claim for failure to call a witness where proposed witness did not testify at PCRA hearing, and petitioner did not demonstrate how witness’s testimony would have been helpful).

2023See Commonwealth v. Selenski, 228 A.3d 8, 17 (Pa.Super. 2020) (the appellant’s failure to demonstrate that his co-conspirator was willing to testify for the defense was fatal to his PCRA claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to call the co-conspirator as a witness).

2021Commonwealth v. Washington, 927 A.2d 586, 597 (Pa. 2007) (denying remand for PCRA hearing where PCRA court assessed credibility of recantation and its significance in light of the trial record and found it was not persuasive evidence).

2019Commonwealth v. Washington, 927 A.2d 586, 599 (Pa. 2007) (internal citations omitted). -7- J-S65004-18 Herein, both John Orner and Zachary Edwards testified at the PCRA hearing.

2020See [J-78-2019] [MO: Wecht, J.] - 14 Commonwealth v. West, 938 A.2d 1034, 1044 (Pa. 2007) (substantive due process challenge to the continued validity of a judgment of sentence after a nine-year pre-incarceration delay not cognizable under the PCRA); Judge, 916 A.2d at 520 (allegation that Canada violated appellant’s rights under the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights by deporting him to face a death sentence not cognizable under the PCRA because claim has “no connection to the truth-determining process and do[es] not render the underlying adjudication of guilt or innocence

2019See Commonwealth v. West, 938 A.2d 1034, 1044 (Pa. 2007) (substantive due process challenge to the continued validity of a judgment of sentence after a nine-year pre- incarceration delay not cognizable under the PCRA); Judge, 916 A.2d at 520 (allegation that Canada violated appellant’s rights under the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights by deporting him to face a death sentence not cognizable under the PCRA because claim has “no connection to the truth-determining process and do[es] not render the underlying adjudication of guilt or innocence . . . unreliable”).

2022See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Roney, 79 A.3d 595, 604-605 (Pa. 2013) (defendant must proffer evidence to support a PCRA claim to be entitled to a hearing; an evidentiary hearing is not a fishing expedition to support a speculative claim).

2022See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Roney, 79 A.3d 595, 604-605 (Pa. 2013) (defendant must proffer evidence to support a PCRA claim to be entitled to a hearing; an evidentiary hearing is not a fishing expedition to support a speculative claim).

2026Derrickson, supra; see also Commonwealth v. Wharton, 886 A.2d 1120, 1125 (Pa. 2005) (involving court’s refusal to consider PCRA claim when the petitioner failed to ____________________________________________ 6 Cintron has filed a pro se responsive brief to counsel’s motion to withdraw and Anders brief.

2025Derrickson, supra; see also Commonwealth v. Wharton, 886 A.2d 1120, 1125 (Pa. 2005) (involving court’s refusal to consider PCRA claim when the petitioner failed to acknowledge that the petition was untimely, “much less -7- J-S32019-25 attempt to raise one of the enumerated exceptions to the time bar”).

2026See Commonwealth v. Sneed, 45 A.3d 1096, 1107 (Pa. 2012) (explaining that a PCRA hearing is only necessary “when [a petitioner’s] proffer establishes a colorable claim about which there remains a material issue of fact” and “PCRA hearings are not discovery expeditions”).

2026See Commonwealth v. Sneed, 45 A.3d 1096, 1107 (Pa. 2012) (explaining that a PCRA hearing is only necessary “when [a petitioner’s] proffer establishes a colorable claim about which there remains a material issue of fact” and “PCRA hearings are not discovery expeditions”).

2024See id. at 199 ; see also Commonwealth v. Hickman, 799 A.2d 136, 141 (Pa. Super. 2002) (concluding plea counsel’s advice concerning the defendant’s boot camp ____________________________________________ 6 The assistant district attorney also misapprehended the applicability of Section 6105(b) to Appellant’s conviction during argument at the August 15, 2023, PCRA hearing: As [plea counsel] pointed out, [Appellant] is not a person not to possess under Pennsylvania law, that is not one of the offenses that’s enumerated in [Section 6105(b)], and the plain language of Section 922 does not forbid hi

2020Here Nevarre presented no evidence at his PCRA hearing that the advice provided by plea counsel was not "within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases." Id.