J-S37029-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : SAMAJJ JACKSON : : Appellant : No. 199 EDA 2023
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered December 13, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0003466-2019
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., MURRAY, J., and SULLIVAN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY SULLIVAN, J.: FILED JAUNARY 5, 2024
Samajj Jackson (“Jackson”) appeals from the order dismissing his
petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act.1 We affirm.
In March 2019, Jackson was charged with strangulation, aggravated
assault, aggravated harassment by prisoner, and related offenses for an
attack on a psychologist from a secure juvenile center. 2 In October 2019,
Jackson, who was represented by plea counsel, entered a negotiated guilty
plea to the above-listed offenses after an extensive colloquy in which Jackson
disavowed, in writing, any mental health problems that would impair his ability
to understand the proceedings. See Guilty Plea Statement, 10/30/19, at
____________________________________________
1 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
2 Jackson was seventeen years old at the time of the assault. The matter was transferred to the criminal division of the court of common pleas for prosecution. J-S37029-23
unnumbered 1. Additionally, plea counsel certified that Jackson was not
suffering from any mental health problems that affected his ability to
understand everything which had been said, read, and done concerning his
guilty plea. See id. at unnumbered 4. The court immediately imposed
sentence. Jackson did not file post-sentence motions or an appeal.
In December 2019, Jackson filed a pro se PCRA petition. PCRA counsel
was appointed and, in October 2020, filed an amended PCRA petition asserting
that plea counsel should have requested a competency evaluation prior to the
entry of Jackson’s guilty plea. In February 2021, the parties stipulated that
Jackson should undergo a competency evaluation. In December 2021, the
competency evaluator wrote a report detailing Jackson’s extensive mental
health history and diagnoses,3 and determined Jackson, at the time of the
report, had sufficient competency to “proceed with the legal process.” See
Competency Evaluation, Jackson’s Brief Exhibit A at 6 (“the mental health
evaluation”). In November 2022, the PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907
notice of intent to dismiss Jackson’s petition without a hearing.4 In December
2022, the PCRA court dismissed the petition without a hearing. Jackson
appealed, and he and the PCRA court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. ____________________________________________
3 Jackson’s numerous diagnoses included attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, bipolar I disorder, specific learning disorder, and borderline personality disorder. See Competency Evaluation, Jackson’s Brief Exhibit A at 4.
4 Jackson asserts he responded to the notice on December 7, 2022, see Jackson’s Brief at 7, but the certified record does not contain any response to the Rule 907 notice.
-2- J-S37029-23
Jackson raises one issue on appeal:
Was the [PCRA] court in error for denying [Jackson’s] [PCRA p]etition without a hearing?
Jackson’s Brief at 5.
The following standards govern our review:
Appellate review of a PCRA court’s dismissal of a PCRA petition is limited to the examination of whether the PCRA court’s determination is supported by the record and free of legal error. The PCRA court’s findings will not be disturbed unless there is no support for the findings in the certified record. This Court grants great deference to the findings of the PCRA court, and we will not disturb those findings merely because the record could support a contrary holding. In contrast, we review the PCRA court’s legal conclusions de novo.
Commonwealth v. Maxwell, 232 A.3d 739, 744 (Pa. Super. 2020) (en banc)
(internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Further, a “PCRA court’s
credibility findings are to be accorded great deference, and where supported
by the record, such determinations are binding on a reviewing court.”
Commonwealth v. Williams, 141 A.3d 440, 452 (Pa. 2016) (internal
citations omitted).
For a PCRA petitioner to obtain relief on an ineffectiveness claim, he
must establish:
(1) the underlying claim has arguable merit; (2) no reasonable basis existed for counsel’s action or failure to act; and (3) he suffered prejudice as a result of counsel’s error, with prejudice measured by whether there is a reasonable probability the result of the proceeding would have been different. Counsel is presumed to have rendered effective assistance. Additionally, counsel
-3- J-S37029-23
cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to raise a meritless claim. Finally, because a PCRA petitioner must establish all the [ineffective assistance test] prongs to be entitled to relief, we are not required to analyze the elements of an ineffectiveness claim in any specific order; thus, if a claim fails under any required element, we may dismiss the claim on that basis.
Commonwealth v. Treiber, 121 A.3d 435, 445 (Pa. 2015) (citations
omitted). To prevail on a claim of ineffectiveness concerning a guilty plea, a
petitioner must show that but for counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness he would
not have pled guilty. See Commonwealth v. Timchak, 69 A.3d 765, 774-
75 (Pa. Super. 2013).
Jackson claims the mental health evaluation alerted the PCRA court to
his previous treatment for, and diagnosis of, mental health conditions. See
Jackson’s Brief at 13-15. He asserts that had plea counsel ordered a
competency evaluation at the time of his plea, it “would have been beneficial
for the defense.” See id. at 15.
The PCRA court noted Jackson signed a guilty plea colloquy affirmatively
stating that no emotional or physical problems affected his ability to
understand the proceedings and his decisions. The PCRA court also noted that
at the time of the plea it had conducted a thorough colloquy to ensure that
Jackson’s plea was knowing, intentional, and voluntary, and Jackson stated
that he had no questions for the court or counsel about his plea. See PCRA
Court Opinion, 3/31/23, at 6-7. The court further stated that the
Commonwealth agreed “in an abundance of caution” to Jackson’s subsequent
mental health evaluation and that the clinical psychologist who conducted the
-4- J-S37029-23
evaluation found Jackson competent to proceed with the legal process. See
id. at 8.
We find no error in the PCRA court’s ruling. Jackson averred he had no
mental health problems that would impair his ability to understand his guilty
plea and that he was satisfied with his counsel’s representation. See Guilty
Plea Statement, 10/30/19, at unnumbered 1. A petitioner is bound by his
statements during a guilty plea colloquy and cannot later disavow or contradict
them. See Commonwealth v. Muhammed, 794 A.2d 378, 384 (Pa. Super.
2002).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S37029-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : SAMAJJ JACKSON : : Appellant : No. 199 EDA 2023
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered December 13, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0003466-2019
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., MURRAY, J., and SULLIVAN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY SULLIVAN, J.: FILED JAUNARY 5, 2024
Samajj Jackson (“Jackson”) appeals from the order dismissing his
petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act.1 We affirm.
In March 2019, Jackson was charged with strangulation, aggravated
assault, aggravated harassment by prisoner, and related offenses for an
attack on a psychologist from a secure juvenile center. 2 In October 2019,
Jackson, who was represented by plea counsel, entered a negotiated guilty
plea to the above-listed offenses after an extensive colloquy in which Jackson
disavowed, in writing, any mental health problems that would impair his ability
to understand the proceedings. See Guilty Plea Statement, 10/30/19, at
____________________________________________
1 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
2 Jackson was seventeen years old at the time of the assault. The matter was transferred to the criminal division of the court of common pleas for prosecution. J-S37029-23
unnumbered 1. Additionally, plea counsel certified that Jackson was not
suffering from any mental health problems that affected his ability to
understand everything which had been said, read, and done concerning his
guilty plea. See id. at unnumbered 4. The court immediately imposed
sentence. Jackson did not file post-sentence motions or an appeal.
In December 2019, Jackson filed a pro se PCRA petition. PCRA counsel
was appointed and, in October 2020, filed an amended PCRA petition asserting
that plea counsel should have requested a competency evaluation prior to the
entry of Jackson’s guilty plea. In February 2021, the parties stipulated that
Jackson should undergo a competency evaluation. In December 2021, the
competency evaluator wrote a report detailing Jackson’s extensive mental
health history and diagnoses,3 and determined Jackson, at the time of the
report, had sufficient competency to “proceed with the legal process.” See
Competency Evaluation, Jackson’s Brief Exhibit A at 6 (“the mental health
evaluation”). In November 2022, the PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907
notice of intent to dismiss Jackson’s petition without a hearing.4 In December
2022, the PCRA court dismissed the petition without a hearing. Jackson
appealed, and he and the PCRA court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. ____________________________________________
3 Jackson’s numerous diagnoses included attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, bipolar I disorder, specific learning disorder, and borderline personality disorder. See Competency Evaluation, Jackson’s Brief Exhibit A at 4.
4 Jackson asserts he responded to the notice on December 7, 2022, see Jackson’s Brief at 7, but the certified record does not contain any response to the Rule 907 notice.
-2- J-S37029-23
Jackson raises one issue on appeal:
Was the [PCRA] court in error for denying [Jackson’s] [PCRA p]etition without a hearing?
Jackson’s Brief at 5.
The following standards govern our review:
Appellate review of a PCRA court’s dismissal of a PCRA petition is limited to the examination of whether the PCRA court’s determination is supported by the record and free of legal error. The PCRA court’s findings will not be disturbed unless there is no support for the findings in the certified record. This Court grants great deference to the findings of the PCRA court, and we will not disturb those findings merely because the record could support a contrary holding. In contrast, we review the PCRA court’s legal conclusions de novo.
Commonwealth v. Maxwell, 232 A.3d 739, 744 (Pa. Super. 2020) (en banc)
(internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Further, a “PCRA court’s
credibility findings are to be accorded great deference, and where supported
by the record, such determinations are binding on a reviewing court.”
Commonwealth v. Williams, 141 A.3d 440, 452 (Pa. 2016) (internal
citations omitted).
For a PCRA petitioner to obtain relief on an ineffectiveness claim, he
must establish:
(1) the underlying claim has arguable merit; (2) no reasonable basis existed for counsel’s action or failure to act; and (3) he suffered prejudice as a result of counsel’s error, with prejudice measured by whether there is a reasonable probability the result of the proceeding would have been different. Counsel is presumed to have rendered effective assistance. Additionally, counsel
-3- J-S37029-23
cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to raise a meritless claim. Finally, because a PCRA petitioner must establish all the [ineffective assistance test] prongs to be entitled to relief, we are not required to analyze the elements of an ineffectiveness claim in any specific order; thus, if a claim fails under any required element, we may dismiss the claim on that basis.
Commonwealth v. Treiber, 121 A.3d 435, 445 (Pa. 2015) (citations
omitted). To prevail on a claim of ineffectiveness concerning a guilty plea, a
petitioner must show that but for counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness he would
not have pled guilty. See Commonwealth v. Timchak, 69 A.3d 765, 774-
75 (Pa. Super. 2013).
Jackson claims the mental health evaluation alerted the PCRA court to
his previous treatment for, and diagnosis of, mental health conditions. See
Jackson’s Brief at 13-15. He asserts that had plea counsel ordered a
competency evaluation at the time of his plea, it “would have been beneficial
for the defense.” See id. at 15.
The PCRA court noted Jackson signed a guilty plea colloquy affirmatively
stating that no emotional or physical problems affected his ability to
understand the proceedings and his decisions. The PCRA court also noted that
at the time of the plea it had conducted a thorough colloquy to ensure that
Jackson’s plea was knowing, intentional, and voluntary, and Jackson stated
that he had no questions for the court or counsel about his plea. See PCRA
Court Opinion, 3/31/23, at 6-7. The court further stated that the
Commonwealth agreed “in an abundance of caution” to Jackson’s subsequent
mental health evaluation and that the clinical psychologist who conducted the
-4- J-S37029-23
evaluation found Jackson competent to proceed with the legal process. See
id. at 8.
We find no error in the PCRA court’s ruling. Jackson averred he had no
mental health problems that would impair his ability to understand his guilty
plea and that he was satisfied with his counsel’s representation. See Guilty
Plea Statement, 10/30/19, at unnumbered 1. A petitioner is bound by his
statements during a guilty plea colloquy and cannot later disavow or contradict
them. See Commonwealth v. Muhammed, 794 A.2d 378, 384 (Pa. Super.
2002).
Moreover, Jackson has failed to establish any error in the dismissal of
his claim of ineffective assistance of plea counsel. He asserts only that a
mental health evaluation “would have been beneficial to the defense.” See
Jackson’s Brief at 15. To the extent he suggests he could not understand the
guilty plea proceeding, he did not offer any evidence that, at that relevant
time, he was unable to understand his actions. He does not direct us to any
such finding in the mental health evaluation. That Jackson may have had
mental health issues is not proof that his mental state affected his ability to
voluntarily and knowingly enter his plea at that time. He has not argued on
appeal that he would not have pled guilty had he known about his mental
health issues. Thus, Jackson has not alleged with any specificity the necessary
prejudice to prevail on his claim that plea counsel was ineffective for failing to
request a mental health evaluation.
-5- J-S37029-23
Lastly, to the extent Jackson asserts he was entitled to an evidentiary
hearing, “[i]t is well[-]settled that there is no absolute right to an evidentiary
hearing on a PCRA petition, and if the PCRA court can determine from the
record that no genuine issues of material fact exist, then a hearing is not
necessary.” Commonwealth v. Maddrey, 205 A.3d 323, 328 (Pa. Super.
2019) (citation omitted). To obtain a PCRA hearing, a petitioner must
demonstrate that he raised a genuine issue of material fact which if resolved
in his favor would have entitled him to relief, or that the court otherwise
abused its discretion in denying a hearing. See Commonwealth v. Paddy,
15 A.3d 431, 442 (Pa. 2011). We review an order dismissing a petition
without an evidentiary hearing for an abuse of discretion. See
Commonwealth v. Wilson, 273 A.3d 13, 18 (Pa. Super. 2022). For the
reasons set forth above, Jackson fails to demonstrate a material issue of fact
on which he was due a hearing and does not show prejudice from counsel’s
alleged ineffectiveness. Thus, no relief is due. See Paddy, 15 A.3d at 442;
Timchak, 69 A.3d at 774-75.
Order affirmed.
-6- J-S37029-23
Date: 1/5/2024
-7-