Com. v. Bennett, T.
This text of Com. v. Bennett, T. (Com. v. Bennett, T.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
J-S77023-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : TERRELL BENNETT : : Appellant : No. 3017 EDA 2017
Appeal from the PCRA Order August 11, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0015273-2008
BEFORE: OTT, J., DUBOW, J., and STRASSBURGER*, J.
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED MARCH 27, 2019
Appellant, Terrell Bennett, appeals pro se from the August 11, 2017
Order that dismissed as untimely his second Petition filed pursuant to the Post
Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. In his Brief he
challenges for the first time the effectiveness of assistance provided by
counsel in his first PCRA Petition. After careful review, we affirm the PCRA
court’s Order.
A detailed recitation of the factual and procedural history is unnecessary
to our disposition. Briefly, on February 5, 2010, Appellant entered into a
negotiated guilty plea to the charges of Murder of the Third Degree, Robbery,
and Criminal Conspiracy1 after Appellant admitted to police that he and two
co-conspirators committed an armed robbery of a 78-year-old victim and a ____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(c); 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(1)(i); and 18 Pa.C.S. § 903, respectively. ____________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S77023-18
co-conspirator fatally shot the victim in the face. The trial court sentenced
Appellant to an aggregate term of 25 to 50 years’ incarceration, consistent
with the negotiations.
Appellant did not file a direct appeal. Thus, Appellant’s Judgment of
Sentence became final on March 8, 2010, upon expiration of the time to file a
direct appeal.2 See Pa.R.A.P. 903(a); Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(A)(3).
On February 25, 2011, Appellant filed his first PCRA Petition pro se
challenging the legality of his negotiated sentence and the effectiveness of
trial counsel for failing to raise the challenge in a post-sentence motion. The
PCRA court appointed Earl G. Kauffman, Esq., as PCRA counsel. Attorney
Kauffman filed a “no merit” Turner/Finley3 letter on February 3, 2012,
requesting to withdraw as counsel after concluding that Appellant’s Petition
presented no issues of arguable merit.
On May 18, 2012, the PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 Notice to
Dismiss (“907 Notice”) Appellant’s PCRA Petition without a hearing. On August
28, 2012, after the PCRA court granted Appellant’s request for extension of
time to respond, Appellant filed a Response raising seven additional issues.
On September 10, 2012, Attorney Kauffman filed an amended Turner/Finley
letter concluding that Appellant’s additional issues were without merit. On
March 11, 2013, the PCRA court issued a supplemental 907 Notice. On ____________________________________________
2 March 7, 2010 fell on a Sunday. See 1 Pa.C.S. § 1908.
3 Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc).
-2- J-S77023-18
September 21, 2013, after the PCRA court granted Appellant’s several
requests for an extension of time to respond, Appellant responded to the 907
Notice.
Based on Appellant’s 907 Notice Response, on December 6, 2013, the
PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing. At the hearing, Appellant advised the
PCRA court of his decision to withdraw his PCRA Petition. Following a colloquy
on the record, the PCRA court found that Appellant had knowingly,
intelligently, and voluntarily decided to withdraw his PCRA petition.
On April 6, 2015, Appellant filed the instant pro se PCRA Petition, his
second, challenging only the legality of his sentence pursuant to Alleyne.4
On March 15, 2016, and March 29, 2016, Appellant filed an Amended PCRA
Petition and a second Amended Petition entitled “Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus,” respectively, further developing his illegal sentencing claims.
On August 11, 2017, after giving proper 907 Notice, the PCRA court
dismissed the Petition without a hearing as untimely.
Appellant timely filed a pro se Notice of Appeal. On September 19,
2017, the PCRA court ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P 1925(b) Statement
within 21 days, i.e., by October 10, 2017. The Order informed Appellant: “A
failure to comply with such directive will be considered by the appellate court
as a waiver of all objections to the order, ruling or other matter complained
of.” 1925(b) Order, 9/19/2017. Appellant failed to comply with the Order.
____________________________________________
4 Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013).
-3- J-S77023-18
On November 29, 2017, the PCRA court issued a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion
declining to address any issues because Appellant failed to file a 1925(b)
Statement. On January 8, 2018, over a month after the PCRA court issued its
Rule 1925(a) Opinion, Appellant filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement.
In his Brief, Appellant raises only the following ineffectiveness issues:
I. Whether P.C.R.A. Counsel [Earl G. Kauffman] violated [Petitioner’s] Constitutional Right to petition the Court in a first timely P.C.R.A. Petition pursuant to both Pa. Const. Article I, §§§ 1, 9, and 11, and the Sixth Amendment by Coercing/Inducing Petitioner to withdraw his P.C.R.A./Evidentiary Hearing with the assertion that he would get Life Without Parole if he won the issue of Failure to File a Pre-Sentence Investigation. Moreover, such inducement violated Mr. Bennett’s right to Present Sufficient Evidence of Mitigating Evidence at Sentencing Phase. Thus, violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
II. P.C.R.A. Counsel’s coercion/Inducement of Mr. Bennett to Waive his Right to Petition the Court in his first P.C.R.A. Petition demonstrates a Miscarriage of Justice. Thus, violating his right under the Due Process Clause.
Appellant’s Brief at 3 (verbatim).
Before we address the merits of this appeal, we must first consider
whether Appellant has preserved his issues for review.
Our Supreme Court has held that in order to preserve claims for
appellate review, a PCRA appellant must comply when a PCRA court orders
the appellant to file a Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal under
Rule 1925. Commonwealth v. Butler, 812 A.2d 631, 633–34 (Pa. 2002);
Any issues not raised in a timely Rule 1925(b) Statement will be deemed
-4- J-S77023-18
waived. Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775, 780 (Pa. 2005). The
Supreme Court has instructed that compliance with Rule 1925(b) is mandatory
and we do not have discretion to permit departures from the rule’s
requirements. See Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484, 494 (Pa. 2011)
(“Our jurisprudence is clear and well-settled, and firmly establishes that: Rule
1925(b) sets out a simple bright-line rule, which obligates an appellant to file
and serve a Rule 1925(b) statement, when so ordered; any issues not raised
in a Rule 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived; the courts lack the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Com. v. Bennett, T., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/com-v-bennett-t-pasuperct-2019.