Com. v. Rodriguez, R.

Opinion

J-S43040-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : RUBEN RODRIGUEZ : : Appellant : No. 3251 EDA 2024

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 18, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0005455-2018

BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED JANUARY 30, 2026

Appellant, Ruben Rodriguez, appeals from the post-conviction court’s

November 18, 2024 order denying his timely-filed petition under the Post

Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.

The PCRA court summarized the facts and procedural history of

Appellant’s case, which we adopt herein. See PCRA Court Opinion (PCO),

3/20/25, at 1-4. We only note that on April 11, 2019, a jury convicted

Appellant of various offenses, included attempted murder and aggravated

assault. On August 23, 2019, he was sentenced to an aggregate term of 22

to 44 years’ incarceration. This Court affirmed Appellant’s judgment of

sentence on November 10, 2022, and our Supreme Court denied his

subsequent petition for allowance of appeal on May 10, 2023. See

Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 289 A.3d 61 (Pa. Super. 2022) (unpublished

memorandum), appeal denied, 297 A.3d 685 (Pa. 2023). J-S43040-25

On October 31, 2023, Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition. Counsel

was appointed and filed an amended petition on Appellant’s behalf. Therein,

Appellant argued that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue,

on direct appeal, that the jury’s verdict was contrary to the weight of the

evidence. See Amended PCRA Petition, 3/21/24, at 14-16. Appellant also

averred that he was entitled to a new trial based on newly-discovered evidence

that a police officer allegedly committed misconduct during the investigation

of his case. Id. at 17-19. On October 11, 2024, the PCRA court issued a

Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of its intent to dismiss Appellant’s petition without a

hearing. Appellant did not respond, and on November 18, 2024, the court

issued an order dismissing his petition.

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, and he and the court complied

with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Herein, Appellant states two issues for our review:

[I.] Whether appeal counsel was ineffective in representing … Appellant for failing to appeal the weight[-]of[-]the[-]evidence claim.

[II.] Whether the PCRA court was in error in failing to grant a new trial on the basis of newly[-]discovered evidence.

Appellant’s Brief at 7 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

In assessing Appellant’s two issues, we have reviewed the certified

record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law. Additionally, we have

examined the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Charles A. Ehrlich of the

Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. We conclude that Judge

Ehrlich’s opinion adequately disposes of the arguments presented by

-2- J-S43040-25

Appellant. See PCO at 5-9. Accordingly, we adopt Judge Ehrlich’s opinion as

our own and affirm the order dismissing Appellant’s PCRA petition for the

reasons set forth therein.

Order affirmed.

Date: 1/30/2026

-3-