Com. v. Coleman, J., Jr.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: August 21, 2025
• Docket: 42 MDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S16013-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : JOSEPH SENTORE COLEMAN JR. : : Appellant : No. 42 MDA 2024

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered December 7, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-41-CR-0000090-2017

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., BOWES, J., and LANE, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, P.J.: FILED: AUGUST 21, 2025

Joseph Sentore Coleman, Jr., appeals from the order, entered in the

Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County, denying his petition filed

pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA). See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-

9546. We affirm.

Following trial on February 13-15, 2019, a jury convicted Coleman of

two counts of second-degree murder and related offenses.1 On November 20,

2019, the trial court sentenced Coleman to two consecutive terms of life

imprisonment. Coleman filed post-trial motions, which were denied. On direct

appeal, Coleman raised eight issues for review, and this Court affirmed. See

____________________________________________

1 Coleman waived his right to a jury trial on related firearms offenses, and the

court found him guilty of persons not to possess a firearm, but acquitted him of a charge of possession of a firearm without a license J-S16013-25

Commonwealth v. Coleman, 260 A.3d 115 (Pa. Super. 2021) (Table).

Coleman did not seek allowance of appeal in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

On March 24, 2022, Coleman filed a pro se PCRA petition. The court

appointed counsel, who filed an amended PCRA petition. On December 7,

2023, the PCRA court denied Coleman’s petition. This timely appeal followed.

Both Coleman and the PCRA court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Coleman raises the following issues on appeal:

1. Whether error occurred where the trial court attempted to engage in improper negotiations.

2. Whether the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury regarding corrupt source testimony.

3. Whether error occurred where the trial court permitted an exhibit containing inadmissible information to be presented to the jury.

Appellant’s Brief, at 7. Coleman argues each of these alleged errors violated

his constitutional rights. Id. at 12-13.

None of Coleman’s claims was preserved before the trial court or on

direct appeal. Thus, he has waived all three of his claims for PCRA purposes.2

See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(3) (“To be eligible for relief under this subchapter,

2 Appellate counsel makes no argument with respect to trial counsel’s or direct

appeal counsel’s ineffectiveness, presumably because the PCRA court stated in its Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of intent to dismiss that, even if the claims were asserted as ineffectiveness claims, Coleman would “not be entitled to relief because the claims lacked merit or [Coleman] was not prejudiced.” See PCRA Court Opinion, 12/8/23. We agree with the PCRA court’s opinions below and, if we did not find waiver, would find no merit to any of the issues presented. See PCRA Court Opinion, 1/19/23, at 3-8; see also Opinion and Order, 12/8/23, at 2-3.

-2- J-S16013-25

the petitioner must plead and prove by a preponderance of the evidence []

[t]hat the allegation of error has not been previously litigated or waived.”);

id. at § 9544(b) (“[A]n issue is waived if the petitioner could have raised it

but failed to do so before trial, at trial, during unitary review, on appeal[,] or

in a prior state postconviction proceeding.”). See also Commonwealth v.

Albrecht, 720 A.2d 693, 700 (Pa. 1998) (application of relaxed waiver

doctrine in PCRA proceeding runs afoul of very terms of PCRA, which excludes

waived issues from class of cognizable PCRA claims).

Specifically, in his first issue, Coleman argues that the court’s

statement, “Well I suppose you could enter a plea and that would take care

of that[,]” violated his due process rights. See id. at 15. Coleman could have

raised this issue before the trial court or on direct appeal, but, instead, he has

raised it on collateral appeal for the first time. Accordingly, he is not entitled

to relief.

Next, Coleman argues he was “denied his constitutional rights” because

the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury regarding corrupt source

testimony. See Appellant’s Brief, at 12. This claim is also waived. Coleman

failed to object at trial or raise the argument on direct appeal. See 42

Pa.C.S.A. §9543(a)(3); id. at § 9544(b).

In his final issue, Coleman claims the trial court erred in permitting an

exhibit that contained inadmissible polygraph information pertaining to a

witness for the Commonwealth to be presented to the jury. See Appellant’s

-3- J-S16013-25

Brief, at 21. Coleman did not object to this at trial. Therefore, this claim, too,

is waived. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(3); id. at § 9544(b).

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 08/21/2025

-4-