Com. v. Harcum, L. ( 2021 )

J-S20045-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
LARRY B. HARCUM :
:
Appellant : No. 118 MDA 2021
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered December 7, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-36-CR-0001704-2016,
CP-36-CR-0003877-2017, CP-36-CR-0005538-2015
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
LARRY B. HARCUM :
:
Appellant : No. 119 MDA 2021
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered December 7, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-36-CR-0001704-2016,
CP-36-CR-0003877-2017, CP-36-CR-0005538-2015
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
LARRY B. HARCUM :
:
Appellant : No. 120 MDA 2021
J-S20045-21
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered December 7, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-36-CR-0001704-2016,
CP-36-CR-0003877-2017, CP-36-CR-0005538-2015
BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., KING, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED: SEPTEMBER 9, 2021
Larry Bernard Harcum (“Harcum”) appeals, pro se, from the Order
dismissing his Petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act
(“PCRA”). See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We quash the appeal.
On August 4, 2017, Harcum entered an open guilty plea, at docket
number CP-36-CR-0005538-2015 (“No. 5538-2015”), to delivery of heroin.1
On the same date, Harcum additionally entered an open guilty plea, at docket
number CP-36-CR-0001704-2016 (“No. 1704-2016”), to delivery of fentanyl.
The trial court deferred sentencing at both dockets, pending preparation of a
presentence investigation report (“PSI Report”). On December 1, 2017, the
trial court imposed a sentence of 2½ to 6 years in prison at No. 5538-2015,
and a consecutive term of 7-15 years in prison at No. 1704-2016.
Regarding docket number CP-36-CR-0003877-2017 (“No. 3877-2017”),
the trial court summarized the relevant factual and procedural history in a
prior Opinion as follows:
On December 1, 2017, a guilty plea and sentencing hearing
was held before the court…. [Harcum] entered a non-negotiated
____________________________________________
1 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30).
-2-
J-S20045-21
guilty plea at [No. 3877-2017] to one count each of the following:
[p]ossession with [i]ntent to [d]eliver (“PWID”) – [h]eroin and
[f]entanyl; [p]ossession of [p]araphernalia; [m]anufacture of
[d]esigner [d]rug; and [d]riving under suspension (“DUS”)[, his
tenth offense]. [In addition, Harcum] entered a plea of nolo
contendere to one count of criminal conspiracy,[2] which is count
4 on this docket. …
[Harcum] allowed the PSI Report completed for [Nos.]
5538-2015 and 1704-2016 to be incorporated into [the record at
No. 3877-2017] and to be used as the basis of sentencing on [No.]
3877-2017. [A copy of the PSI Report was provided to Harcum’s
counsel prior to the December 1, 2017, sentencing hearings.
Harcum’s counsel indicated that he had reviewed it with Harcum
and noted that, despite the new charges, the background
information was the same.] Following comments, [Harcum] was
sentenced on [No.] 3877-2017 as follows:
[PWID]: 3½ to 10 years
[paraphernalia]: 6 to 12 months
[distribution of designer drug]: 21 to 60 months
[conspiracy]: 3½ to 10 years
[DUS]: 3 to 6 months.
… Count 1 [PWID] of [No.] 3877-2017 was made consecutive to
[No.] 1704-2016. Counts 2 [paraphernalia], 4 [conspiracy], and
5 [DUS] were made concurrent with, and Count 3 [distribution of
designer drug] was made consecutive to, Count 1 of [No.] 3877-
2017. [Harcum’s] aggregate sentence on [Nos.] 5538-2015,
1704-2016 and 3877-2017 was fourteen (14) years and nine (9)
months to forty (40) years’ incarceration, to be served in the state
correctional system.
Trial Court Opinion, 3/29/19, at 1-3 (footnotes omitted; one footnote added).
Following an unsuccessful post-sentence Motion, Harcum filed a direct appeal
____________________________________________
2 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(32), (36); 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1543(a); 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903.
Relevantly, the conspiracy charge related to conduct involving Harcum’s
fiancée.
-3-
J-S20045-21
at No. 3877-2017.3 This Court affirmed Harcum’s judgment of sentence. See
Commonwealth v. Harcum, 195 A.3d 1045 (Pa. Super. 2018) (unpublished
memorandum).
On July 5, 2019, Harcum, pro se, filed the instant PCRA Petition, listing
all three docket numbers.4 In the PCRA Petition, Harcum challenged the
effectiveness of his prior counsel. The PCRA court appointed Harcum counsel.
PCRA counsel filed a Motion for an extension of time to file an amended PCRA
petition and a Motion to compel trial counsel to produce Harcum’s file. The
PCRA court granted counsel’s Motion to compel. PCRA counsel did not file an
amended PCRA petition on Harcum’s behalf, and instead filed a Motion to
Withdraw from representation, along with a Turner/Finley5 No-Merit Letter.
On August 21, 2020, the PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 Notice of its
intention to dismiss Harcum’s PCRA Petition. In its Rule 907 Notice, the PCRA
court also granted PCRA counsel’s Motion to Withdraw. Harcum did not file a
response. On December 7, 2020, the PCRA court dismissed Harcum’s PCRA
Petition.
____________________________________________
3 Harcum did not file direct appeals at No. 5538-2015 or No. 1704-2016.
4 Although the pro se PCRA Petition lists all three docket numbers, the PCRA
Petition does not appear on the docket at No. 1704-2016.
5 Commonwealth v. Turner, 554 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988); Commonwealth v.
Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc).
-4-
J-S20045-21
On January 11, 2021,6 Harcum filed separate pro se Notices of Appeal
at each docket number.7, 8 Subsequently, on January 22, 2021, the PCRA
court vacated its Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 Notice, indicating that it had been
“erroneously titled.” By an Order entered on February 19, 2021, this Court
consolidated Harcum’s appeals sua sponte.
On appeal, Harcum alleges ineffective assistance of counsel. See Brief
for Appellant at 6-13 (unnumbered). In particular, Harcum claims that
“counsel failed to protect his right to a jury trial instead of wagering it away
on [t]he Commonwelath [sic] representing that they would consider
____________________________________________
6 The last day to file timely notices of appeal was January 6, 2021. See
Pa.R.A.P. 903(a) (providing that “the notice of appeal … shall be filed within
30 days after the entry of the order from which the appeal is taken.”).
However, because Harcum filed his Notices of Appeal pro se, he is entitled to
the benefit of the prisoner mailbox rule. See Commonwealth v. Chambers,
35 A.3d 34, 38 (Pa. Super. 2011) (stating that, “in the interest of fairness,
the prisoner mailbox rule provides that a pro se prisoner’s document is
deemed filed on the date he delivers it to prison authorities for mailing.”);
Pa.R.A.P. 121(c) (providing that “a pro se filing submitted by a person
incarcerated in a correctional facility is filed as of the date of the prison
postmark or the date the filing was delivered to the prison authorities for
purposes of mailing as documented by a properly executed prisoner cash slip
or other reasonably verifiable evidence.” (emphasis added)). Here, Harcum
attached to his Notices of Appeal a copy of the mailing envelopes, which
display a postmark date of January 5, 2021. Because this evidences that
Harcum deposited his pro se Notices of Appeal with prison authorities within
the appeal period, we consider his appeals as timely filed.
7 Harcum improperly filed his Notices of Appeal in this Court rather than with
the PCRA court. Upon receipt, this Court returned the pro se Notices of Appeal
to the Lancaster County Clerk of Courts in order to perfect the appeals.
8 The PCRA court did not direct Harcum to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise
statement of errors complained of on appeal.
-5-
J-S20045-21
dismissing charges against his fiancée.” See id. at 6, 9, 11, 12-13
(unnumbered).
Initially, we note that on April 15, 2021, the Commonwealth filed a
Motion to Quash, citing procedural deficiencies in Harcum’s appellate brief.
After review, we confirm that Harcum’s appellate brief fails to the comply with
the following requirements: Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(2) (statement of jurisdiction);
Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(2) and 2115(a) (order in question); Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(3)
(statement of both the scope of review and standard of review); Pa.R.A.P.
2111(a)(4) and 2116 (statement of questions involved); Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(5)
and 2117 (statement of the case); and Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(6) and 2118
(summary of the argument). Indeed, Harcum merely re-filed his pro se PCRA
Petition, with an additional cover page titling the document the “Brief of
Appellant.” Moreover, Harcum’s “brief” includes a bare assertion that his
guilty plea was involuntarily entered, because the Commonwealth agreed to
“consider” dropping the charges against his fiancée.9
____________________________________________
9 The record reflects that, during the December 1, 2017, guilty plea and
sentencing hearing, Harcum stated, “it was said to me that if I pled guilty to
these charges, it will be considered that they [the Commonwealth] would drop
the charges against my fiancée.” N.T., 12/1/17, at 6. The trial court clarified
that any agreement concerning Harcum’s fiancée was not part of his sentence
for the no-contest plea to conspiracy. Id. The trial court then asked Harcum
to confirm his understanding that by entering a plea, he was “admitting to
factual guilt” for the conduct giving rise to the charges. Id. Harcum replied,
“Yes, ma’am. Under my own free will.” Id. at 7.
-6-
J-S20045-21
While we are willing to allow some leeway to pro se litigants, we will not
act as Harcum’s appellate counsel and create legal theories for him. See
Commonwealth v. Hakala, 900 A.2d 404, 407 (Pa. Super. 2006) (stating
that “[i]t is not this Court’s function or duty to become an advocate for
appellants.”) (citation omitted). It is well settled that a pro se appellant is not
entitled to any advantage due to their lack of legal training, and must comply
with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Commonwealth v.
Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 498 (Pa. Super. 2005) (stating that “any person
choosing to represent himself in a legal proceeding must, to a reasonable
extent, assume that his lack of expertise and legal training will be his
undoing.”). The defects in Harcum’s brief are substantial and preclude
meaningful review. Accordingly, we grant the Commonwealth’s Motion to
Quash, and quash Harcum’s appeal.
Motion to Quash granted. Appeal quashed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/09/2021
-7-