Com. v. Bailey, C. ( 2014 )

J-S64031-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
CHRISTOPHER NICHOLAS BAILEY
Appellant No. 583 WDA 2014
Appeal from the PCRA Order March 14, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-04-CR-0002114-2010
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and LAZARUS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED OCTOBER 24, 2014
Appellant, Christopher Nicholas Bailey, appeals from the order entered
in the Beaver County Court of Common Pleas, which denied his first petition
brought pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) at 42 Pa.C.S.A.
§§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
In its opinion, the PCRA court fully and correctly set forth the relevant
facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to
restate them. We add only that Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on
April 8, 2014, from the court’s denial of PCRA relief. The court did not order
Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal
pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and Appellant filed none.
Appellant raises two issues for our review:
J-S64031-14
WHETHER PRIOR PLEA COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE WHEN
PRIOR PLEA COUNSEL ADVISED [APPELLANT]
INCORRECTLY REGARDING THE POSSIBLE SENTENCE
THAT WOULD BE IMPOSED FOLLOWING AN OPEN PLEA.
WHETHER THERE WAS ACTUAL PREJUDICE TO
[APPELLANT] WHEN PRIOR PLEA COUNSEL INACCURATELY
ADVISED [APPELLANT] REGARDING THE POSSIBLE
[SENTENCE TO BE] IMPOSED.
(Appellant’s Brief at 7).
Our standard of review of the denial of a PCRA petition is limited to
examining whether the record evidence supports the court’s determination
and whether the court’s decision is free of legal error. Commonwealth v.
Ford, 947 A.2d 1251 (Pa.Super. 2008), appeal denied, 598 Pa. 779, 959
A.2d 319 (2008). This Court grants great deference to the findings of the
PCRA court if the record contains any support for those findings.
Commonwealth v. Boyd, 923 A.2d 513 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal denied,
593 Pa. 754, 932 A.2d 74 (2007). If the record supports a post-conviction
court’s credibility determination, it is binding on the appellate court.
Commonwealth v. Dennis, 609 Pa. 442, 17 A.3d 297 (2011).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Harry E.
Knafelc, we conclude Appellant’s issues merit no relief. The PCRA court
opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions
presented. (See PCRA Court Opinion, filed March 17, 2014, at 2-11)
(finding: plea counsel presented to Appellant Commonwealth’s offer of
-2-
J-S64031-14
twenty to forty years’ imprisonment in exchange for Appellant’s guilty plea
to third-degree murder and aggravated assault; Appellant rejected
negotiated plea, believing judge liked him and court would impose only ten
to twenty year sentence if Appellant entered open guilty plea; plea counsel
testified he explained to Appellant ramifications of pleading guilty and
consequences of entering open plea; Appellant understood counsel’s
explanations; counsel testified he urged Appellant to accept
Commonwealth’s negotiated plea offer instead of entering open plea, as
counsel believed Commonwealth would seek maximum sentence of thirty to
sixty years’ imprisonment if Appellant entered open plea; plea counsel did
not promise Appellant ten to twenty year sentence in exchange for pleading
guilty; counsel’s testimony is credible; court conducted thorough plea
colloquy, and Appellant signed written plea colloquy confirming his plea was
knowing and voluntary; Appellant’s claim that counsel unlawfully induced his
guilty plea is baseless).1 Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the PCRA
court’s opinion.
____________________________________________
1
We are mindful of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Alleyne
v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013),
in which the Court expressly held that any fact increasing the mandatory
minimum sentence for a crime is considered an element of the crime to be
submitted to the fact-finder and found beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.Recently, in Commonwealth v. Newman, ___ A.3d ___, 2014 PA Super
178 (filed Aug. 20, 2014), an en banc panel of this Court made clear, inter
alia, that Alleyne has only limited retroactivity; in other words, Alleyne
applies to criminal cases still pending on direct review. Id. at *2. Here,
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-3-
J-S64031-14
Order affirmed.
President Judge Emeritus Bender concurs in the result.
Judge Lazarus joins this memorandum.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/24/2014
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
Appellant’s appeal arises from the denial of a PCRA petition. Under these
circumstances, Alleyne is unavailable.
-4-
Circulated 10/14/2014 01:42 PM
Circulated 10/14/2014 01:42 PM
Circulated 10/14/2014 01:42 PM