Com. v. McGlumphy, J.

J-S20034-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
JAY-C O'BRYAN MCGLUMPHY :
:
Appellant : No. 832 WDA 2021
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered December 7, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-25-CR-0003895-2017
BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., MURRAY, J., and KING, J.
MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED: October 13, 2022
Appellant, Jay-C O’Bryan McGlumphy, appeals nunc pro tunc from the
order entered in the Erie County Court of Common Pleas, which dismissed his
first petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”).1 We affirm
and grant counsel’s petition to withdraw.
The PCRA court set forth the factual and procedural history of this case
as follows:
On June 6, 2016, at 9:31 p.m., the City of Erie Police
Department responded to a report of shots fired on Lincoln
Avenue near the Bayfront Parkway in Erie, Pennsylvania.
When they arrived, they found Isiah Wiley dead in the
driver’s seat of a white 2003 Cadillac. There police
interviewed Luis Lopez, who had been in the passenger seat
when Wiley was killed. Lopez told police that an unknown
assailant or assailants pulled over in another vehicle, fired
several shots into the Cadillac, and fled the scene. The
____________________________________________
1 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
J-S20034-22
bullets spared Lopez, but claimed the life of Wiley. Other
witnesses described the vehicle carrying the shooter as dark
in color. Police found three 9-millimeter shell casings and a
bullet at the crime scene. The coroner ruled the victim’s
death a homicide.
Police later found a Taurus PT111 9-millimeter
semiautomatic handgun at the scene of a separate incident
on June 12, 2016. Detectives were able to lift a latent
fingerprint from the gun. The Pennsylvania State Police
(PSP) Crime Laboratory issued a report identifying the gun
as the one which had fired the three 9-millimeter casings
and the bullet from the Lincoln Avenue crime scene. PSP
also identified the fingerprint found on the handgun as the
left thumb print of [Appellant]….
On August 1, 2017, Police interviewed [Appellant regarding]
the June 6, 2016, incident. [Appellant] told police that he
was picked up that night by three others in a dark-colored
SUV. [Appellant] and the other individuals found a white
Cadillac in which Lopez was a passenger. They followed the
Cadillac, lost it, but found it again near the 1000 block of
Lincoln Avenue near the Bayfront Parkway. The other
individuals in the vehicle handed [Appellant] a loaded gun
and directed him to fire at the Cadillac. He fired the gun six
or seven times, at which point he noticed the victim slumped
over in the driver’s seat. [Appellant] had been 17 at the
time of the incident.
On October 27, 2017, [Appellant] was charged with several
counts related to the June 6, 2016, incident, including
criminal homicide, murder in the first degree, criminal
conspiracy to commit murder in the first degree, aggravated
assault, recklessly endangering another person, possession
of an instrument of crime, possession of a firearm by a
minor, firearms not to be carried without a license, and
criminal attempt at murder in the first degree. The
Commonwealth maintained that, although Wiley was the
ultimate victim of the shooting, Lopez had been the intended
target. (See N.T. Sentencing, 12/12/18, at 18).
On November 1, 2017, Attorney Keith H. Clelland was
appointed to represent [Appellant] on the charges related
to the June 6, 2016, incident. On March 6, 2018, Attorney
-2-
J-S20034-22
Clelland filed an omnibus pre-trial motion for relief on behalf
of his client, seeking recognition of an alibi defense,
decertification of the case to juvenile court, access to
[Appellant’s] juvenile record, and a psychological
evaluation. On April 5, 2018, the [trial court] granted the
motion in part, permitting Attorney Clelland access to
[Appellant’s] juvenile record, and allowing Attorney Clelland
further time for discovery. Subsequently, [on July 3, 2018,]
Attorney Clelland filed a formal motion to decertify the case
to juvenile court and [the trial court] ordered a
psychological evaluation.
The evaluation revealed a troubled past, including an
extensive juvenile record dating back to 2012, and
placement in several juvenile programs as an adjudicated
delinquent where he twice absconded. The evaluator noted
that “[i]nformation generated from the subject’s
psychological testing, clinical interview and records review
do not support [Appellant’s] amenability to treatment within
the juvenile justice system” and consequently opined that
“[Appellant] lacks the necessary insight and motivation for
juvenile rehabilitation.” On August 28, 2018, a hearing was
held…on the motion to decertify. On September 24, 2018,
[the trial court] denied the motion.
By letters dated July 18, 2018, and October 5, 2018,
[Appellant] requested that [the trial court] appoint him new
counsel. On October 10, 2018, Attorney Clelland filed a
motion to withdraw representation. Attorney Clelland’s
motion indicated he “continuously had to pull teeth to get
any sort of response” from his client. ([Motion to Withdraw
Representation, filed 10/10/18]). Attorney Clelland further
stated that [Appellant] undermined his representation “and
in fact flagrantly goes out of his way to make a case even
more difficult.” (Id.) On October 11, 2018, [the trial court]
denied the motion to withdraw, noting no further request for
a change of counsel would be entertained by the court.
On October 19, 2018, [Appellant] entered into a plea
agreement, pleading guilty to murder of the third degree,
possession of an instrument of crime, and possession of a
firearm by a minor. Sentencing occurred on December 12,
2018. Prior to sentencing, the Commonwealth informed
[Appellant] of his right to file a post-sentence motion or an
-3-
J-S20034-22
appeal and the time periods in which he would have to do
so. (N.T. Sentencing at 5-6).
During the sentencing hearing, [the trial court] addressed a
letter sent by [Appellant] to the court where he maintained
his innocence, claiming he was taking the blame for
someone else. (Id. at 8-9). To the extent that [Appellant]
was requesting to [w]ithdraw[] his guilty plea, [the trial
court] denied the request, noting [Appellant] had already
admitted in open court when he entered his plea that he
fired the bullets that caused the death of the victim. (Id. at
9). [The trial court] then proceeded to sentence [Appellant]
to an aggregate period of 25 to 50 years of incarceration
plus restitution and costs. (Id. at 32). Neither a post-
sentence motion nor a notice of appeal was timely filed on
[Appellant’s] behalf.
On May 9, 2019, the clerk of courts received a letter dated
May 6, 2019, asking about the status of an appeal. On June
12, 2019, the clerk of courts received a similar letter from
[Appellant] in which he inquired on how to conduct his own
appeal.
On December 16, 2019, [Appellant] filed the present PCRA
petition pro se, claiming: a) violation of the Constitution of
this Commonwealth or the laws of the United States which
so undermined the truth determining process that no
reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken
place, b) ineffective assistance of counsel which so
undermined the truth determining process that no reliable
adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place, c)
a plea of guilty unlawfully induced where the circumstances
make it likely that inducement caused him to plead and he
is innocent, and d) improper obstruction of government
officials of his right of appeal where a meritorious appealable
issue existed and was properly preserved in the trial court.
(See Pro se PCRA Petition, 12/16/19, at 2). On March 5,
2020, [Appellant], by and through PCRA counsel, filed an
amended PCRA petition, limited to the ineffective assistance
of counsel claim. (See Amended Petition for Post-
Conviction Relief, 3/5/20). On April 6, 2020, the
Commonwealth filed a response.
On September 18, 2020, an evidentiary hearing was held on
-4-
J-S20034-22
the PCRA petition. Both [Appellant] and Attorney Clelland
testified. At the close of the evidentiary hearing, the [c]ourt
made initial factual findings and took the matter under
further advisement. (N.T. PCRA Hearing, 9/18/20, at 37).
On December 7, 2020, [the PCRA court] issued an Opinion
and order to dismiss PCRA pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 908,
denying the relief sought and dismissing the petition.
[Appellant] did not initially appeal that decision. On March
23, 2021, [Appellant] penned a letter to the Erie County
Clerk of Courts claiming that his PCRA counsel informed him
he “had to write her a letter to give her [permission] to file
an appeal to the Superior Court” and further alleging that
he tested positive for COV1D-19 on January 1, 2021, and as
a result, he was confined to the medical block and could not
communicate with PCRA counsel to indicate his desire to file
an appeal before the time to do so had expired. (Letter,
3/23/21). In the letter, he unequivocally stated that he
“would like to get [his] appeal rights back so [he] can appeal
[his] PCRA to the Superior Court.” (Id.) On April 8, 2021,
the court informed both PCRA counsel and the
Commonwealth of the letter, putting the parties on notice of
[Appellant’s] desire to reinstate his appellate rights. On
June 15, 2021, the Commonwealth indicated to the court
that it did not object to the reinstatement of [Appellant’s]
appellate rights nunc pro tunc. By order dated June 22,
2021, the court treated the March 23, 2021, letter as a
motion to reinstate appellate rights nunc pro tunc and
granted the motion, providing that [Appellant], by and
through counsel, would have 30 days in which to file a notice
of appeal of the court’s dismissal of the PCRA petition with
the Superior Court.
[Appellant timely] filed a [nunc pro tunc] notice of appeal
on July 16, 2021. That same day, [the PCRA court] ordered
[Appellant] to file a concise statement of matters
complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). On
August 3, 2021, PCRA counsel filed a statement of intent to
file an Anders/McClendon[2] brief in lieu of a 1925(b)
statement, see Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(4), and indicating that
____________________________________________
2Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967),
and Commonwealth v. McClendon, 495 Pa. 467, 434 A.2d 1185 (1981).
-5-
J-S20034-22
after performing a thorough review of the file and
transcripts, she found there to be no issues of merit to raise
on appeal.…
(PCRA Court Opinion, filed 8/24/21, at 1-6) (some record citations omitted).
Preliminarily, appellate counsel has filed a petition for leave to withdraw
as counsel, together with an Anders brief. Before counsel can be permitted
to withdraw from representing a petitioner under the PCRA, Pennsylvania law
requires counsel to file a “no-merit” brief or letter. Commonwealth v.
Karanicolas, 836 A.2d 940, 946 (Pa.Super. 2003).
[C]ounsel must…submit a “no-merit” letter to the [PCRA]
court, or brief on appeal to this Court, detailing the nature
and extent of counsel’s diligent review of the case, listing
the issues which the petitioner wants to have reviewed,
explaining why and how those issues lack merit, and
requesting permission to withdraw.
Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 931 A.2d 717, 721 (Pa.Super. 2007). Counsel
must also send to the petitioner a copy of the “no-merit” letter or brief and
motion to withdraw and advise petitioner of his right to proceed pro se or with
privately retained counsel. Id. “Substantial compliance with these
requirements will satisfy the criteria.” Karanicolas, supra at 947.
Instantly, counsel filed with this Court a petition to withdraw and a no-
merit brief. 3 Counsel’s brief details the nature of her review and explains why
____________________________________________
3 Where PCRA counsel requests to withdraw, the appropriate filing is a “no-
merit” letter/brief per Commonwealth v. Turner, 518 Pa. 491, 544 A.2d 927(1988) and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super. 1988) (en
banc). Here, counsel mistakenly designated her no-merit brief as one
-6-
J-S20034-22
Appellant’s claims lack merit. Counsel’s brief also demonstrates that she
examined the certified record and found no meritorious issues for appeal.
Counsel notified Appellant of the request to withdraw and advised Appellant
of his rights. Thus, counsel has substantially complied with the Turner/Finley
requirements. See Wrecks, supra; Karanicolas, supra. Accordingly, we
proceed to an independent evaluation of the record. See Turner, supra at
494-95, 544 A.2d at 928-29 (stating appellate court must conduct
independent analysis and agree with counsel that appeal is frivolous).
Counsel raises the following issue on Appellant’s behalf:
Whether the PCRA court erred when it denied Appellant’s
PCRA petition and supplemental PCRA petition?
(Turner/Finley Brief at 3).4
Appellant argues there was a breakdown in the attorney-client
relationship between Appellant and plea counsel. Appellant asserts plea
counsel was ineffective for failing to file post-sentence motions on Appellant’s
behalf. Likewise, Appellant insists plea counsel was ineffective for failing to
file a direct appeal on his behalf. Appellant further suggests plea counsel
____________________________________________
pursuant to Anders. Nevertheless, we can accept an Anders brief in lieu of
a Turner/Finley brief where counsel seeks to withdraw on appeal. See
Commonwealth v. Fusselman, 866 A.2d 1109, 1111 n.3 (Pa.Super. 2004),
appeal denied, 584 Pa. 691, 882 A.2d 477 (2005).
4 Appellant has not filed a responsive brief pro se or with newly-retained
counsel. Nevertheless, on March 9, 2021, Appellant filed a pro se response to
counsel’s petition to withdraw, agreeing that the court should permit counsel
to withdraw, and requesting a copy of his client file.
-7-
J-S20034-22
improperly induced him to plead guilty. Appellant concludes plea counsel
rendered ineffective assistance, and this Court must grant relief. We disagree.
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).
“Counsel is presumed to have rendered effective assistance.”
Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 231 A.3d 855, 871 (Pa.Super. 2020), appeal
denied, ___ Pa. ___, 242 A.3d 908 (2020).
[T]o establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a
defendant must show, by a preponderance of the evidence,
ineffective assistance of counsel which, in the circumstances
of the particular case, so undermined the truth-determining
process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence
could have taken place. The burden is on the defendant to
prove all three of the following prongs: (1) the underlying
claim is of arguable merit; (2) that counsel had no
reasonable strategic basis for his or her action or inaction;
and (3) but for the errors and omissions of counsel, there is
a reasonable probability that the outcome of the
proceedings would have been different.
Commonwealth v. Sandusky, 203 A.3d 1033, 1043 (Pa.Super. 2019),
-8-
J-S20034-22
appeal denied, 654 Pa. 568, 216 A.3d 1029 (2019) (internal citations and
quotation marks omitted). The failure to satisfy any prong of the test for
ineffectiveness will cause the claim to fail. Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 612
Pa. 333, 30 A.3d 1111 (2011).
Regarding Appellant’s first allegation of ineffectiveness, that counsel
failed to file post-sentence motions on his behalf, we note that the failure to
file a post-sentence motion does not automatically give rise to a presumption
of prejudice. Rather, where counsel fails to file post-sentence motions, the
traditional three-prong test applies to determine whether counsel was
ineffective. Commonwealth v. Reaves, 592 Pa. 134, 923 A.2d 1119 (2007)
(holding defendant must satisfy traditional three-prong ineffectiveness test
concerning counsel’s failure to file post-sentence motions). See also
Commonwealth v. Liston, 602 Pa. 10, 16, 977 A.2d 1089, 1092 (2009)
(emphasizing that “the failure to file post-sentence motions does not fall within
the limited ambit of situations where a defendant alleging ineffective
assistance of counsel need not prove prejudice to obtain relief”). Therefore,
an appellant bears the burden of establishing that counsel’s failure to file a
post-sentence motion prejudiced him; namely, that his “counsel’s
performance was deficient” and that the “deficient performance prejudiced the
defense.” Reaves, supra at 147, 923 A.2d at 1127.
Notably, in general, an appellant who pleads guilty may only challenge
the jurisdiction of the court, the legality of the sentence, and the validity of
-9-
J-S20034-22
the guilty plea on appeal. Commonwealth v. Morrison, 173 A.3d 286, 290
(Pa.Super. 2017). “[W]hen ‘the plea agreement contains a negotiated
sentence which is accepted and imposed by the sentencing court, there is no
authority to permit a challenge to the discretionary aspects of that sentence.’”
Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Reichle, 589 A.2d 1140, 1141 (Pa.Super.
1991)).
Instantly, Appellant cannot establish that he was prejudiced by counsel’s
failure to file a post-sentence motion.5 The court sentenced Appellant to an
agreed upon aggregate sentence of 25-50 years’ imprisonment following his
guilty plea. Because the court imposed the negotiated sentence, Appellant
would not have been permitted to challenge the discretionary aspects of his
sentence. See Morrison, supra. In addition, prior to sentencing, the court
considered a pro se letter from Appellant as a request to withdraw his plea,
and denied that request, stating:
I’m not going to let you withdraw your plea…for a number
of reasons. When you stood before me for your plea I asked
you, and to put it bluntly, I asked if you pulled the trigger
that injected the lead that went into the [victim’s] body and
caused his death and under oath to me in this solemn place
you said yes. That’s the end of it.
(N.T. Sentencing, 12/12/18, at 9). On this record, Appellant cannot prove
____________________________________________
5 We note that at the PCRA hearing, Attorney Clelland testified that Appellant
“never asked [him] to file any post-sentence motion.” (N.T. PCRA Hearing,
9/18/20, at 15). The PCRA court found Attorney Clelland’s testimony credible.
(See PCRA Court Opinion at 14).
- 10 -
J-S20034-22
that he was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to file a post-sentence motion, and
he cannot establish ineffective assistance of counsel on this ground. See
Reaves, supra; Sandusky, supra.
Regarding Appellant’s claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to file
a direct appeal on his behalf, we observe that the “[a]ctual or constructive
denial of the assistance of counsel…falls within a narrow category of
circumstances in which prejudice is legally presumed.” Commonwealth v.
Lane, 81 A.3d 974, 978 (Pa.Super. 2013), appeal denied, 625 Pa. 658, 92
A.3d 811 (2014). Our Supreme Court has held:
[W]here there is an unjustified failure to file a requested
direct appeal, the conduct of counsel falls beneath the range
of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases,
denies the accused the assistance of counsel guaranteed by
the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and
Article I, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, as well
as the right to direct appeal under Article V, Section 9, and
constitutes prejudice for purposes of Section 9543(a)(2)(ii).
Therefore, in such circumstances, and where the remaining
requirements of the PCRA are satisfied, the petitioner is not
required to establish his innocence or demonstrate the
merits of the issue or issues which would have been raised
on appeal.
Commonwealth v. Lantzy, 558 Pa. 214, 226-27, 736 A.2d 564, 572 (1999)
(internal footnote omitted). In other words, if counsel neglects to file a
requested direct appeal, “counsel is per se ineffective as the defendant was
left with the functional equivalent of no counsel.” Commonwealth v.
Markowitz, 32 A.3d 706, 715 (Pa.Super. 2011), appeal denied, 615 Pa. 764,
40 A.3d 1235 (2012).
- 11 -
J-S20034-22
Even if a defendant does not expressly ask counsel to file a direct appeal,
counsel still has a duty “to adequately consult with the defendant as to the
advantages and disadvantages of an appeal where there is reason to think
that a defendant would want to appeal.” Commonwealth v. Bath, 907
A.2d 619, 623 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal denied, 591 Pa. 695, 918 A.2d 741(2007) (emphasis added). Where the defendant did not request counsel to
file a direct appeal but counsel failed to consult with the defendant, counsel is
not per se ineffective and the court applies the traditional three-prong test “to
decide whether counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance by
failing to advise [the] client about his appellate rights.” Markowitz, supra
at 716.
Pursuant to [Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 120
S.Ct. 1029, 145 L.Ed.2d 985 (2000) and its Pennsylvania
expression, Commonwealth v. Touw, 781 A.2d 1250(Pa.Super. 2001)], counsel has a constitutional duty to
consult with a defendant about an appeal where counsel has
reason to believe either “(1) that a rational defendant would
want to appeal (for example, because there are non-
frivolous grounds for appeal), or (2) that this particular
defendant reasonably demonstrated to counsel that he was
interested in appealing.” Touw[, supra] at 1254 (quoting
Roe[, supra] at 480, 120 S.Ct. [at 1036]).
Bath, supra at 623. “Where a petitioner can prove either factor, he
establishes that his claim has arguable merit.” Markowitz, supra at 716.
Prejudice in this context means a defendant must show a reasonable
probability that, but for counsel’s failure to consult, the defendant would have
sought additional review. Touw, supra at 1254.
- 12 -
J-S20034-22
Instantly, at the PCRA hearing, Appellant admitted that he never asked
Attorney Clelland to file an appeal after sentencing. (N.T. PCRA Hearing at
7). Instead, Appellant claims he asked counsel to file an appeal prior to
sentencing, stating: “I asked him the whole time I was in the county. I asked
him to put a motion in to suppress evidence, direct appeal, which he never
put no direct appeal in.” (Id.) Appellant explained that when he wrote a
letter to the clerk of courts asking about the status of his appeal, that was an
inquiry “to figure out how to get one.” (Id. at 8).
By contrast, Attorney Clelland testified that Appellant “never asked
[him] to file an appeal.” (Id. at 15). The PCRA court found Attorney Clelland’s
testimony credible. (See PCRA Court Opinion at 14). We see no reason to
disrupt the court’s credibility determination in favor of Attorney Clelland. See
Dennis, supra. Thus, Appellant has failed to establish that counsel was per
se ineffective for failing to file a requested direct appeal. See Lantzy, supra;Markowitz, supra.The PCRA court also found that Appellant did not establish Attorney
Clelland’s ineffectiveness for failing to consult with Appellant about the
possibility of an appeal. The court credited Attorney Clelland’s testimony that
he discussed post-sentence and appellate procedures generally with
Appellant. Attorney Clelland acknowledged that he did not specifically discuss
the merits of an appeal with Appellant, but if he had done so, he would have
advised against an appeal as there were no meritorious issues to appeal. The
- 13 -
J-S20034-22
PCRA court credited plea counsel’s testimony and concluded that Appellant
failed to establish Attorney Clelland’s ineffectiveness regarding counsel’s duty
to consult. The record supports the PCRA court’s credibility determination in
favor of Attorney Clelland, and the court’s analysis. See Dennis, supra. See
also Bath, supra.With respect to Appellant’s final claim that Attorney Clelland rendered
ineffective assistance by inducing him to enter a guilty plea, we observe that
“[a] criminal defendant has the right to effective counsel during a plea process
as well as during trial. A defendant is permitted to withdraw his guilty plea
under the PCRA if ineffective assistance of counsel caused the defendant to
enter an involuntary plea of guilty.” Commonwealth v. Patterson, 143 A.3d
394, 397 (Pa.Super. 2016) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
“The voluntariness of the plea depends on whether counsel’s advice was within
the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases.” Id.(quoting Commonwealth v. Kersteter, 877 A.2d 466, 468 (Pa.Super.
2005)).
Here, Appellant was facing first degree murder and related charges for
the shooting of Mr. Wiley. Appellant confessed to the crime and his
fingerprints were on the murder weapon. (See N.T. Sentencing at 10).
Further, Attorney Clelland explained at the evidentiary hearing:
…I got a letter from [Appellant] in October asking me to
arrange a plea bargain. And he had given me permission –
he had waived confidentiality, so I could speak to his family.
I went to his family and I said, I am – do not believe I can
- 14 -
J-S20034-22
win this trial. I said, if I lose, he will spend the rest of his
life in prison. I said, will you speak to him about taking a
third degree murder. They did. They said they would. And
in fact, they did. I have a copy of the letter they sent. They
said, please, listen to [Attorney Clelland]. Please take the
plea, we want you to get out of jail at some point in your
life. He thereafter took it and that’s where my mind thought
was….
(N.T. PCRA Hearing at 25-26). On this record, there is no arguable merit to
Appellant’s claim of ineffectiveness for inducing his guilty plea. See
Patterson, supra. See also Sandusky, supra.
Following our independent review of the record, we agree with counsel
that there are no other non-frivolous issues on appeal. See Turner, supra.Accordingly, we affirm and grant counsel’s petition to withdraw.
Order affirmed. Petition to withdraw granted.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/13/2022
- 15 -