Com. v. Maldonado-Rosado, W. ( 2023 )

J-A13028-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
WILLIAM DUANE MALDONADO- :
ROSADO :
: No. 856 MDA 2022
Appellant :
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered May 20, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-38-CR-0000698-2019
BEFORE: BOWES, J., LAZARUS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED: AUGUST 1, 2023
William Duane Maldonado-Rosado appeals from the order, entered in
the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County, denying his petition filed
pursuant to the Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-
9546. We affirm based on the opinion authored by the Honorable Bradford H.
Charles.
A jury convicted Maldonado-Rosado of possession with intent to deliver
(PWID) (heroin and fentanyl),1 possession of a controlled substance,2
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30).
2 Id. at § 780-113(a)(16).
J-A13028-23
possession of drug paraphernalia,3 and false identification to law
enforcement.4 The trial court sentenced Maldonado-Rosado to an aggregate
term of 60 to 120 months’ imprisonment. Maldonado-Rosado filed post-
sentence motions, which were denied. Maldonado-Rosado filed a direct
appeal, and this Court affirmed his judgment of sentence. See
Commonwealth v. Maldonado-Rosado, 1411 MDA 2020 (Pa. Super. filed
June 10, 2021) (unpublished memorandum decision).
Maldonado-Rosado did not seek review with our Supreme Court.
Instead, on June 28, 2021, he filed a timely pro se PCRA petition. The PCRA
court appointed counsel, who filed an amended PCRA petition on December 7,
2021, alleging misconduct on the part of two jurors who served on the jury at
Maldonado-Rosado’s 2019 trial.
The PCRA court created a detailed process by which Maldonado-
Rosado’s claims could be addressed. The PCRA court scheduled a pre-hearing
conference, which was held on February 22, 2022. Following that conference,
the court scheduled a factual hearing for May 19, 2022, at which the court
would hear from the individuals that Maldonado-Rosado identified as having
information to corroborate his claim of juror misconduct. The court also noted
that, after that hearing, a second factual hearing would be scheduled, at which
the jurors in question would be subpoenaed to testify. The court set forth the
____________________________________________
3 Id. at § 780-11(a)(32).
4 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4914(a).
-2-
J-A13028-23
details of how that second factual hearing would proceed. See Order,
2/22/22.
At the May 19, 2022 hearing, Maldonado-Rosado’s counsel informed the
court that he was unable to locate either of the two individuals Maldonado-
Rosado identified as having direct evidence of juror misconduct. Because
Maldonado-Rosado presented no evidence to support his claims, the court
denied Maldonado-Rosado's PCRA petition. See Order, 5/19/22.
On June 3, 2022, Maldonado-Rosado filed a timely appeal. Both the
PCRA court and Maldonado-Rosado have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Maldonado-Rosado raises two issues on appeal:
1. Did the [PCRA c]ourt commit prejudicial error by not
granting [Maldonado-Rosado’s] request for additional time
to continue his search for the two (2) witnesses that
submitted written statements declaring that several of the
jurors selected for his trial knew of his case and prejudged
him guilty?
2. Did the [PCRA c]ourt commit prejudicial error by denying
[Maldonado-Rosado’s PCRA petition] without allowing a
hearing on the merits?
Appellant’s Brief, at 6.
Appellate review of a PCRA court’s dismissal of a PCRA petition is limited
to the examination of “whether the PCRA court’s determination is supported
by the record and free of legal error.” Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d
988, 992 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted). “The PCRA court’s findings will
not be disturbed unless there is no support for the findings in the certified
record.” Commonwealth v. Lawson, 90 A.3d 1, 4 (Pa. Super. 2014)
-3-
J-A13028-23
(citations omitted). “This Court grants great deference to the findings of the
PCRA court, and we will not disturb those findings merely because the record
could support a contrary holding.” Commonwealth v. Hickman, 799 A.2d
136, 140 (Pa. Super. 2002) (citation omitted).
The PCRA court stated:
[Maldonado-Rosado’s] claim of juror misconduct was presented to
this [c]ourt, and we carefully evaluated it with the goal of
balancing [Maldonado-Rosado’s] ability to present his claims with
the concerns about juror privacy. This [c]ourt was meticulously
specific in outlining a process by which [Maldonado-Rosado] claim
of juror misconduct could be addressed. Moreover, we
communicated our proposal to everyone in advance of conducting
a conference scheduled for the specific purpose[] of approving a
plan. At the conference, both [Maldonado-Rosado] and the
Commonwealth approved of the process proposed by the
[c]ourt. That process was then implemented. . . .
[Maldonado-Rosado] was then given three (3) months to
locates and subpoena his witnesses. During this 3-month
period of time, [Maldonado-Rosado] did not seek additional
time. Instead, he waited until the date of the hearing to request
additional time. He then proclaimed in [c]ourt that it should have
been the responsibility of the District Attorney or the [c]ourt to
locate the individuals who he claimed could prove juror
misconduct.
Trial Court Opinion, 8/3/22, at 26 (emphasis added).
As a PCRA petitioner, Maldonado-Rosado has the burden to plead and
prove his claims in order to obtain relief under the PCRA. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §
9543(a). Given the court’s consideration and carefully detailed process for
allowing Maldonado-Rosado to proceed with this claim, and the fact that
Maldonado-Rosado failed to present any evidence to prove his claim, we
conclude the PCRA court committed no error. Miller, supra. We rely upon
-4-
J-A13028-23
Judge Charles’ comprehensive opinion to affirm the order denying Maldonado-
Rosado’s PCRA petition. We direct the parties to attach a copy of that opinion
in the event of further proceedings.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/01/2023
-5-