Com. v. Beausoleil, C. ( 2019 )

J-S58036-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
CHRISTOPHER R. BEAUSOLEIL :
:
Appellant : No. 745 WDA 2019
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered May 1, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Criminal Division at No(s):
CP-25-CR-0002202-2017
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and DUBOW, J.
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED DECEMBER 19, 2019
Appellant, Christopher R. Beausoleil, appeals from the May 1, 2019
Order entered in the Erie County Court of Common Pleas dismissing as
meritless his first pro se Petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction
Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. After careful review, we affirm.
On December 15, 2017, Appellant entered an open guilty plea to
Harassment1 after sending numerous emails and Facebook posts to victim
Elizabeth Gibbons from June 23, 2017 to June 29, 2017 with the intent to
harass, annoy, or alarm her. See N.T. Plea, 12/15/17, at 3. On the same
day, the trial court sentenced Appellant to four to twelve months’ incarceration
to be served consecutively to sentences that Appellant was currently serving
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S. § 2709(a)(7).
J-S58036-19
on unrelated dockets. Appellant did not file any post-sentence motions or a
notice of appeal from his Judgment of Sentence.
On November 19, 2018, Appellant filed a pro se PCRA Petition at
Criminal Docket Nos. 2202-2017, 3418-2017, and 3319-2017 challenging,
inter alia, the legality of his sentences.2 In his Petition, Appellant requested
permission to proceed pro se. On 2/1/17, after conducting a Grazier3
hearing, the PCRA court found that Appellant voluntarily, willingly, and
intelligently waived his right to counsel and allowed Appellant to proceed pro
se in the PCRA proceeding.
On March 22, 2019, the PCRA court issued an Opinion and Notice of
Intent to Dismiss PCRA Without Hearing Pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(1)
(“907 Notice”). Upon reviewing Appellant’s Response, on May 1, 2019, the
PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s PCRA Petition as meritless.
On May 13, 2019, Appellant filed a timely Notice of Appeal at Criminal
Docket No. 2202-2017. The trial court did not order a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
Concise Statement and did not issue a Rule 1925(a) Opinion regarding its
dismissal of the PCRA Petition.
____________________________________________
2 On February 5, 2018, after a trial, Appellant was convicted of Harassment at
Criminal Docket No. 3418-2017. On May 29, 2018, Appellant pleaded guilty
to Aggravated Assault, Driving Under the Influence of a Schedule II or III
Controlled Substance – 4th Offense, and Fleeing or Attempting to Elude Officer
at Criminal Docket No. 3319.
3 Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998).
-2-
J-S58036-19
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
1. Whether the numerous issue(s) Appellant raised in his PCRA
Petition were waived for review from the lower-court because they
were not raised during direct appeal (or) was it prima facie that
Appellant was correctly challenging the legality of his criminal
sentence(s) in his PCRA Petition?
2. Did Appellant correctly satisfy the necessary legal aspects to
obtain an evidentiary hearing for the objective and prejudice
components for ineffective assistance of counsel during
sentencing?
3. Did the court correctly sentence Appellant so that the sentence
imposed would possess the required statutory authority under the
Pennsylvania Laws (or) should Appellant’s sentence be vacated
and remanded back for resentencing that is consistent with the
current Pennsylvania sentencing statutes?
Appellant’s Br. at 3 (some capitalization omitted).
As an initial matter, Appellant filed a PCRA Petition raising various issues
regarding three separate criminal proceedings at Criminal Docket Nos. 2202-
2017, 3319-2017, and 3418-2017. In his brief to this Court, Appellant
likewise raises claims of error concerning convictions at all three docket
numbers. However, Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal only at Criminal Docket
No. 2202-2017. See Notice of Appeal, filed 5/13/19 (listing “Case No.: CP-
25-CR-0002202-2017, ET.AL.” in its caption). Accordingly, the only case
before us for review is Criminal Docket No. 2202-2017, and we decline to
address any of the issues that Appellant raises regarding Criminal Docket Nos.
3319-2017 and 3418-2017.
-3-
J-S58036-19
Thus, the only issue properly before us for review is whether the PCRA
court erred in dismissing Appellant’s PCRA Petition as it pertains to Criminal
Docket No. 2202-2017. In his PCRA Petition, Appellant averred that the trial
court imposed an excessive illegal sentence and did not have the authority to
commit him to the Department of Corrections for confinement rather than the
county prison. PCRA Petition at 4, 7, 11. This claim lacks merit.
We review the denial of a PCRA petition to determine whether the record
supports the PCRA court’s findings and whether its order is otherwise free of
legal error. Commonwealth v. Fears, 86 A.3d 795, 803 (Pa. 2014). This
Court grants great deference to the findings of the PCRA court if the record
supports them. Commonwealth v. Boyd, 923 A.2d 513, 515 (Pa. Super.
2007). We give no such deference, however, to the court’s legal conclusions.
Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190, 1194 (Pa. Super. 2012).
This Court has long recognized that there is no absolute right to an
evidentiary hearing. Commonwealth v. Hart, 911 A.2d 939, 941 (Pa. Super.
2006). “It is within the PCRA court’s discretion to decline to hold a hearing if
the petitioner's claim is patently frivolous and has no support either in the
record or [in] other evidence.” Commonwealth v. Wah, 42 A.3d 335, 338
(Pa. Super. 2012) (citations omitted). When the PCRA court denies a petition
without an evidentiary hearing, we “examine each issue raised in the PCRA
petition in light of the record certified before it in order to determine if the
PCRA court erred in its determination that there were no genuine issues of
-4-
J-S58036-19
material fact in controversy and in denying relief without conducting an
evidentiary hearing.” Commonwealth v. Khalifah, 852 A.2d 1238, 1240
(Pa. Super. 2004) (citation omitted).
To be eligible for relief under the PCRA, a petitioner must demonstrate
that the issue has not been previously litigated or waived. 42 Pa.C.S. §
9543(a)(3). “An allegation is deemed waived ‘if the petitioner could have
raised it but failed to do so before trial, at trial, on appeal or in a prior state
postconviction proceeding.’” Commonwealth v. Brown, 872 A.2d 1139,
1144 (Pa. 2005) (quoting 42 Pa.C.S. § 9544(b)).
Notably, once a defendant has entered a guilty plea, “the only
cognizable issues in a post conviction proceeding are the validity of the plea
of guilty and the legality of the sentence.” Commonwealth v. Rounsley,
717 A.2d 537, 538 (Pa. Super. 1998) (citation omitted). However, an
ineffective assistance of counsel claim in connection with advice rendered
regarding whether to plead guilty is cognizable under the PCRA pursuant to 42
Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)(ii). Commonwealth v. Barndt, 74 A.3d 185, 191 (Pa.
Super. 2013).
Pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9762, all persons sentenced to a “continuous
term of incarceration” of two years to five years, even if serving multiple
sentences, “may be committed to the Department of Corrections.” 42 Pa.C.S.
§ 9762(a)(2) and (f)(1).
-5-
J-S58036-19
Appellant entered a guilty plea to Harassment as a third-degree
misdemeanor, an offense that carries a maximum sentence of one year of
imprisonment. See 18 Pa.C.S. § 1104(3). The trial court imposed a sentence
of four to twelve months’ incarceration, a sentence that did not exceed the
statutory maximum. The court ordered this sentence to run consecutively to
an aggregate term of one to two years’ imprisonment that Appellant was
currently serving on prior convictions. See N.T. Plea at 8. Accordingly,
because the trial court sentenced Appellant to serve the four to twelve months’
of incarceration consecutive to his prior sentence of one to two years’
incarceration, for a continuous term of one year and four months’ to three
years’ incarceration, the trial court had the authority to commit Appellant to
the Department of Corrections.
The sentence at Criminal Docket No. 2202-2017 did not exceed the
lawful maximum and complied with 42 Pa.C.S. § 9762. Therefore, the trial
court did not err when it dismissed Appellant’s claim as meritless.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/19/2019
-6-