J-S25028-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : CLAUDE EDWARDS, JR. : : Appellant : No. 3390 EDA 2024
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 15, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-15-CR-0002494-2020
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED AUGUST 27, 2025
Appellant, Claude Edwards, Jr., appeals from the order denying his first
petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.
§§ 9541-46. After careful review, we dismiss this appeal.
In 2020, the Commonwealth charged Appellant with 128 counts in
connection with his sexual abuse of two nieces that occurred over five-year
periods when they were minors. Appellant’s preliminary hearing took place
on September 27, 2020, at which Stewart Charles Paintin, Esq., represented
Appellant. On February 10, 2021, Meredith P. Copeland, Esq., of the Chester
County Public Defenders’ Office entered her appearance in the court of county
pleas on behalf of Appellant. On October 29, 2021, Appellant entered a
negotiated guilty plea to one count each of Involuntary Deviate Sexual
Intercourse, Aggravated Indecent Assault of a Minor, attempted IDSI, and
Indecent Assault. The court imposed the negotiated sentence of 18 to 40 J-S25028-25
years’ incarceration and ordered the Sexual Offender Assessment Board to
perform an assessment to determine whether Appellant met the criteria of a
sexually violent predator (“SVP”).
Appellant sent pro se correspondence to the trial court in November and
December 2021 alleging, among other things, the ineffective assistance of
preliminary hearing counsel and plea counsel. On January 24, 2022, the court
entered an Order deeming Appellant’s December correspondence to be a PCRA
Petition and appointed C. Curtis Norcini, Esq., as PCRA counsel.
On January 25, 2022, the Commonwealth filed a Praecipe asking the
court to schedule a hearing pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.24 (“SVP Hearing”).
On February 15, 2022, the court appointed Michael G. Noone, Esq., to
represent Appellant in the SVP proceeding. Order, 1/15/22.
On February 25, 2022, Attorney Norcini filed a praecipe to withdraw
Appellant’s PCRA petition as prematurely filed. 1
On April 8, 2022, the court entered a “continuance order” of the SVP
hearing in order to allow Attorney Noone to review discovery. Following
additional continuances, on October 20, 2022, the court entered an Order
finding Appellant to be an SVP and directing his compliance with SORNA’s
registration requirements. Appellant did not file a direct appeal.
____________________________________________
1 See Commonwealth v. Harris, 972 A.2d 1196, 1202 (Pa. Super. 2009)
(concluding judgment of sentence became final only following the court’s SVP determination).
-2- J-S25028-25
On March 21, 2023, Appellant sent the court a letter challenging, inter
alia, Attorney Paintin’s failure to visit him in prison following his preliminary
hearing and failure to consult with Attorney Copeland regarding the
Commonwealth’s first plea offer.2 By order dated March 27, 2023, the court
deemed Appellant’s correspondence a PCRA petition and again appointed
Attorney Norcini to represent Appellant as PCRA counsel. Following Attorney
Norcini’s departure from the conflict counsel list in June 2023, the court
appointed Charles Thomas, Esq.
After the PCRA court granted numerous extensions of time, on
September 11, 2024, Attorney Thomas filed a Turner/Finley3 letter and
Motion to Withdraw as PCRA counsel. On September 19, 2024, the court filed
a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of its intent to dismiss the petition without a hearing.
Appellant did not respond to the Rule 907 Notice or the Turner/Finley letter.
2 In his March 21, 2023 letter, Appellant asserted that preliminary hearing counsel had informed him while Appellant was discussing bail with the magistrate, that the Commonwealth would recommend a sentence of “10-12 or 10-20 years” of incarceration in exchange for a guilty plea, and Appellant told counsel at the time that he did not want to discuss. See Defendant’s Letter (deemed PCRA Petition), dated March 15, 2023. He claimed that had preliminary counsel visited him in prison following the preliminary hearing, he would have been able to accept the Commonwealth’s first plea offer. Appellant also acknowledged, however, that Attorney Copeland told him prior to his entering his guilty plea that the Commonwealth had withdrawn the first plea offer after the preliminary hearing. See id., at 1.
3 Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988).
-3- J-S25028-25
On November 15, 2024, the court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw,
and dismissed Appellant’s PCRA petition.
On December 17, 2024, Appellant pro se filed a notice of appeal dated
December 6, 2024, again alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. “Notice of
Appeal,” filed 12/17/24, at 3.4 On December 19, 2024, the PCRA court
ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal
pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
On January 2, 2025, pro se Appellant submitted a response to the
court’s concise statement order in which he again raised claims asserting
ineffectiveness of counsel. He also raised other complaints about the
underlying merits of his convictions and challenged as untrue certain conduct
to which he had pled guilty.5 The PCRA court filed its Rule 1925(a) Opinion
on January 14, 2025. ____________________________________________
4 Although Appellant’s filing in the court of common pleas was not labeled “Notice of Appeal,” Appellant had addressed it to the Superior Court and the trial court forwarded the filing to this Court where this Court docketed it as an appeal from the PCRA court’s order entered November 15, 2024.
5 On January 9, 2025, the PCRA court entered an order substituting Daniel A.
Hollander, Esq., for Attorney Noone. However, Attorney Noone had been appointed to represent Appellant prior to the SVP hearing, not as PCRA counsel. On April 11, 2025, the PCRA court vacated its Order appointing Attorney Hollander, stating the appointment was “improvident,” apparently because the court failed to recognize before entering the appointment order that the notice of appeal filed December 17, 2024, was not a direct appeal. See Order, 4/11/25, at n.1 (noting that it had allowed PCRA counsel to withdraw prior to dismissal of the PCRA petition). See Commonwealth v. Gibson, 318 A.3d 927, 933 (Pa. Super. 2024) (reiterating that “once the [PCRA] court permits PCRA counsel to withdraw after filing a Turner/Finley (Footnote Continued Next Page)
-4- J-S25028-25
On March 11, 2025, this Court issued a Rule to Show Cause (“RTSC”)
as to why this appeal should not be quashed because (1) pro se Appellant
failed to provide a date as to the order from which he was appealing, and (2)
the appeal from the November 15, 2024 order appeared to be untimely.
Appellant pro se provided a response that directed our attention to the
preliminary hearing transcript. See Response, dated 3/19/25.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S25028-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : CLAUDE EDWARDS, JR. : : Appellant : No. 3390 EDA 2024
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 15, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-15-CR-0002494-2020
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED AUGUST 27, 2025
Appellant, Claude Edwards, Jr., appeals from the order denying his first
petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.
§§ 9541-46. After careful review, we dismiss this appeal.
In 2020, the Commonwealth charged Appellant with 128 counts in
connection with his sexual abuse of two nieces that occurred over five-year
periods when they were minors. Appellant’s preliminary hearing took place
on September 27, 2020, at which Stewart Charles Paintin, Esq., represented
Appellant. On February 10, 2021, Meredith P. Copeland, Esq., of the Chester
County Public Defenders’ Office entered her appearance in the court of county
pleas on behalf of Appellant. On October 29, 2021, Appellant entered a
negotiated guilty plea to one count each of Involuntary Deviate Sexual
Intercourse, Aggravated Indecent Assault of a Minor, attempted IDSI, and
Indecent Assault. The court imposed the negotiated sentence of 18 to 40 J-S25028-25
years’ incarceration and ordered the Sexual Offender Assessment Board to
perform an assessment to determine whether Appellant met the criteria of a
sexually violent predator (“SVP”).
Appellant sent pro se correspondence to the trial court in November and
December 2021 alleging, among other things, the ineffective assistance of
preliminary hearing counsel and plea counsel. On January 24, 2022, the court
entered an Order deeming Appellant’s December correspondence to be a PCRA
Petition and appointed C. Curtis Norcini, Esq., as PCRA counsel.
On January 25, 2022, the Commonwealth filed a Praecipe asking the
court to schedule a hearing pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.24 (“SVP Hearing”).
On February 15, 2022, the court appointed Michael G. Noone, Esq., to
represent Appellant in the SVP proceeding. Order, 1/15/22.
On February 25, 2022, Attorney Norcini filed a praecipe to withdraw
Appellant’s PCRA petition as prematurely filed. 1
On April 8, 2022, the court entered a “continuance order” of the SVP
hearing in order to allow Attorney Noone to review discovery. Following
additional continuances, on October 20, 2022, the court entered an Order
finding Appellant to be an SVP and directing his compliance with SORNA’s
registration requirements. Appellant did not file a direct appeal.
____________________________________________
1 See Commonwealth v. Harris, 972 A.2d 1196, 1202 (Pa. Super. 2009)
(concluding judgment of sentence became final only following the court’s SVP determination).
-2- J-S25028-25
On March 21, 2023, Appellant sent the court a letter challenging, inter
alia, Attorney Paintin’s failure to visit him in prison following his preliminary
hearing and failure to consult with Attorney Copeland regarding the
Commonwealth’s first plea offer.2 By order dated March 27, 2023, the court
deemed Appellant’s correspondence a PCRA petition and again appointed
Attorney Norcini to represent Appellant as PCRA counsel. Following Attorney
Norcini’s departure from the conflict counsel list in June 2023, the court
appointed Charles Thomas, Esq.
After the PCRA court granted numerous extensions of time, on
September 11, 2024, Attorney Thomas filed a Turner/Finley3 letter and
Motion to Withdraw as PCRA counsel. On September 19, 2024, the court filed
a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of its intent to dismiss the petition without a hearing.
Appellant did not respond to the Rule 907 Notice or the Turner/Finley letter.
2 In his March 21, 2023 letter, Appellant asserted that preliminary hearing counsel had informed him while Appellant was discussing bail with the magistrate, that the Commonwealth would recommend a sentence of “10-12 or 10-20 years” of incarceration in exchange for a guilty plea, and Appellant told counsel at the time that he did not want to discuss. See Defendant’s Letter (deemed PCRA Petition), dated March 15, 2023. He claimed that had preliminary counsel visited him in prison following the preliminary hearing, he would have been able to accept the Commonwealth’s first plea offer. Appellant also acknowledged, however, that Attorney Copeland told him prior to his entering his guilty plea that the Commonwealth had withdrawn the first plea offer after the preliminary hearing. See id., at 1.
3 Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988).
-3- J-S25028-25
On November 15, 2024, the court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw,
and dismissed Appellant’s PCRA petition.
On December 17, 2024, Appellant pro se filed a notice of appeal dated
December 6, 2024, again alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. “Notice of
Appeal,” filed 12/17/24, at 3.4 On December 19, 2024, the PCRA court
ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal
pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
On January 2, 2025, pro se Appellant submitted a response to the
court’s concise statement order in which he again raised claims asserting
ineffectiveness of counsel. He also raised other complaints about the
underlying merits of his convictions and challenged as untrue certain conduct
to which he had pled guilty.5 The PCRA court filed its Rule 1925(a) Opinion
on January 14, 2025. ____________________________________________
4 Although Appellant’s filing in the court of common pleas was not labeled “Notice of Appeal,” Appellant had addressed it to the Superior Court and the trial court forwarded the filing to this Court where this Court docketed it as an appeal from the PCRA court’s order entered November 15, 2024.
5 On January 9, 2025, the PCRA court entered an order substituting Daniel A.
Hollander, Esq., for Attorney Noone. However, Attorney Noone had been appointed to represent Appellant prior to the SVP hearing, not as PCRA counsel. On April 11, 2025, the PCRA court vacated its Order appointing Attorney Hollander, stating the appointment was “improvident,” apparently because the court failed to recognize before entering the appointment order that the notice of appeal filed December 17, 2024, was not a direct appeal. See Order, 4/11/25, at n.1 (noting that it had allowed PCRA counsel to withdraw prior to dismissal of the PCRA petition). See Commonwealth v. Gibson, 318 A.3d 927, 933 (Pa. Super. 2024) (reiterating that “once the [PCRA] court permits PCRA counsel to withdraw after filing a Turner/Finley (Footnote Continued Next Page)
-4- J-S25028-25
On March 11, 2025, this Court issued a Rule to Show Cause (“RTSC”)
as to why this appeal should not be quashed because (1) pro se Appellant
failed to provide a date as to the order from which he was appealing, and (2)
the appeal from the November 15, 2024 order appeared to be untimely.
Appellant pro se provided a response that directed our attention to the
preliminary hearing transcript. See Response, dated 3/19/25. He also
asserted various claims unrelated to the PCRA petition and not responsive to
the RTSC. The Court discharged the RTSC for the merits panel to address
the timeliness of the appeal.
Preliminarily, we must address whether Appellant’s untimely appeal may
be excused by the prisoner mailbox rule. Our rules of appellate procedure
provide that an appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of the order
from which the appeal is taken. Pa.R.A.P. 903(a). An appellant's failure to
appeal an order timely “generally divests the appellate court of its jurisdiction
to hear the appeal.” Commonwealth v. Williams, 106 A.3d 583, 587 (Pa.
2014)(citation omitted). However, under the prisoner mailbox rule, “a pro se
prisoner's document is deemed filed on the date he delivers it to prison
authorities for mailing.” Commonwealth v. Chambers, 35 A.3d 34, 38 (Pa.
Super. 2011) (citation omitted). “[A]ny reasonably verifiable evidence of the
date that the prisoner deposits the document with prison authorities” is
‘no-merit’ letter, an appellant is no longer entitled to the appointment of counsel on appeal.” (citation omitted)). No counsel entered an appearance in this Court.
-5- J-S25028-25
acceptable to satisfy this rule. Commonwealth v. Perez, 799 A.2d 848, 851
(Pa. Super. 2002) (quoting Commonwealth v. Jones, 700 A.2d 423, 426
(Pa. 1997)(defining prisoner mailbox rule)).
Here, Appellant’s pro se notice of appeal had to have been filed by
December 15, 2024, 30 days after the order dismissing his PCRA petition was
filed. The Chester County clerk of courts received Appellant’s notice of appeal
on December 17, 2024. Although Appellant provided no cash slip or other
evidence in response to our RTSC indicating when he placed his notice of
appeal with prison officials for filing, we nonetheless conclude that Appellant’s
notice of appeal, dated December 6, 2024, would have been placed with prison
authorities sometime before or on December 15, 2024, in order to arrive at
the court on December 17, 2024. Accordingly, we conclude Appellant timely
filed his notice of appeal from the order dismissing his PCRA petition.
Nevertheless, we are unable to proceed to the merits of this appeal.
Upon review of pro se Appellant’s Brief filed February 27, 2025, and
Appellant’s pro se filing titled “Genuine Issue of Fact,” dated May 21, 2025
(which we deem to be an “Amended Brief”), we conclude that Appellant’s
noncompliance with our rules of procedure forecloses any possibility of
meaningful appellate review.6
6 The Commonwealth has requested that this appeal be quashed because of
the inadequacies of Appellant’s brief. See Appellee’s Br. at 7-14.
-6- J-S25028-25
“Although this Court is willing to construe liberally materials filed by a
pro se litigant, pro se status generally confers no special benefit upon an
appellant.” Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245, 251-52 (Pa. Super.
2003). “[A] pro se litigant must comply with the procedural rules set forth in
the Pennsylvania Rules of the Court.” Commonwealth v. Freeland, 106 A.3d
768, 776 (Pa. Super. 2014). “This Court will not act as counsel and will not
develop arguments on behalf of an appellant.” Commonwealth v. Kane, 10
A.3d 327, 331 (Pa. Super. 2010)(citation omitted).
Here, Appellant’s briefs fail to conform to the basic requirements of
appellate advocacy as provided in our rules of appellant procedure. See
Pa.R.A.P. 2111, 2114-2119 (briefing rules). Appellant’s briefs do not include:
(1) a statement of jurisdiction; (2) a copy of the order on appeal; (3) any
statement of the scope and standard of review; (4) a statement of questions
involved; (5) a coherent statement of the case; or (6) a summary of the
argument. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a) (listing required contents for appellate
briefs).
Moreover, Appellant’s briefs contain no discrete argument sections, and
the series of claims that he provides are devoid of any citations to the record
or relevant controlling case law applied and analyzed under the facts of this
case. See Appellant’s Br. at 1-4; Amended Br., at 1-9. See also Pa.R.A.P.
2119 (providing briefing requirements for argument). “The Rules of Appellate
Procedure state unequivocally that each question an appellant raises is to be
-7- J-S25028-25
supported by discussion and analysis of pertinent authority.” Eichman v.
McKeon, 824 A.2d 305, 319 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citations omitted). See
Pa.R.A.P. 2111 and Pa.R.A.P. 2119 (listing argument requirements for
appellate briefs). See Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (explaining that substantial briefing
defects may result in dismissal of appeal).
Appellant’s briefs contain complaints pertaining to the allegations
underlying the offenses to which he pled guilty and assertions that counsel
was ineffective because he should have been allowed to accept the
Commonwealth’s offer of 10 to 20 years’ incarceration. 7 The briefing defects
are so substantial that this Court would have to act as Appellant’s counsel to
frame and develop his issues to provide meaningful review. This we will not
do. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
Date: 8/27/2025 ____________________________________________
7 As the Commonwealth notes, Appellant has never sought to withdraw his guilty plea and if Appellant had gone to trial and been convicted, he would have risked being subjected to a sentence “accruing [t]o hundreds of years of in prison.” Appellee’s Br. at 18, 22.
-8-