Opinion
J-A20045-18 No. 30 WDA 2018
12-27-2018
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JULIA CALIPO, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order December 4, 2017 in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, Criminal Division at No(s): CP-25-CR-0000097-2017 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.:
Julia Calipo ("Calipo") appeals from the December 4, 2017 Order dismissing her Petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"). See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
On April 6, 2017, Calipo entered an open guilty plea to false statements, under the Public Welfare Code, relative to her application for federal food stamps. See 62 P.S. § 481. The trial court sentenced Calipo to 36 months of probation. Calipo did not file a direct appeal.
On July 21, 2017, Calipo, pro se, filed the instant PCRA Petition. The PCRA court appointed Calipo counsel, who filed a supplemental PCRA Petition. After filing a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 Notice of Intent to Dismiss, the PCRA court dismissed the Petition without a hearing. Calipo filed a timely Notice of Appeal and court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement of matters complained of on appeal.
On appeal, Calipo raises the following question for our review: "Whether [Calipo's] entry of a guilty plea was invalid given [the] threats and coercion exerted by defense counsel[,] and the failure of counsel to recognize and present a viable defense?" Brief for Appellant at 2 (capitalization omitted).
We review an order dismissing a petition under the PCRA in the light most favorable to the prevailing party at the PCRA level. This review is limited to the findings of the PCRA court and the evidence of the record. We will not disturb a PCRA court's ruling if it is supported by evidence of record and is free of legal error.Commonwealth v. Ford , 44 A.3d 1190, 1194 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations omitted).
Calipo claims that her plea counsel, Nicole D. Sloane, Esquire ("Attorney Sloane"), unlawfully induced her to plead guilty. Brief for Appellant at 4-5. Calipo argues that Attorney Sloane advised her that "you will lose at trial," and "bullied" her into pleading guilty. Id. at 4. Calipo claims that she is innocent of the charges, and that Attorney Sloane's ineffectiveness caused her to enter an involuntary guilty plea. Id. at 4, 5.
"Allegations of ineffectiveness in connection with the entry of a guilty plea will serve as a basis for relief only if the ineffectiveness caused the defendant to enter an involuntary or unknowing plea." Commonwealth v. Mitchell , 105 A.3d 1257, 1272 (Pa. 2014) (citations omitted). To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under the PCRA, a petitioner must plead and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that counsel's ineffectiveness "so undermined the truth-determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place." 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2)(ii). Specifically, a petitioner must establish that "the underlying claim has arguable merit; second, that counsel had no reasonable basis for his action or inaction; and third, that [a]ppellant was prejudiced." Commonwealth v. Charleston , 94 A.3d 1012, 1020 (Pa. Super. 2014), "Where it is clear that a petitioner has failed to meet any of the three, distinct prongs of the ... test, the claim may be disposed of on that basis alone, without a determination of whether the other two prongs have been met." Commonwealth v. Steele , 961 A.2d 786, 797 (Pa. 2008).
"Where the defendant enters his plea on the advice of counsel, the voluntariness of the plea depends on whether counsel's advice was within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases." Commonwealth v. Hickman , 799 A.2d 136, 141 (Pa. Super. 2002) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). "[C]ounsel is presumed to be effective and the burden of demonstrating ineffectiveness rests on [a]ppellant." Commonwealth v. Ousley , 21 A.3d 1238, 1242 (Pa. Super. 2011). Additionally, "counsel cannot be held ineffective for failing to pursue a meritless claim[.]" Commonwealth v. Hall , 867 A.2d 619, 632 (Pa. Super. 2005).
The PCRA court set forth the relevant law, addressed Calipo's ineffectiveness claim, and determined that it is without merit. See Notice of Intent to Dismiss, 11/3/17, at 3-5. We adopt the sound reasoning of the PCRA court for the purpose of this appeal, and affirm on this basis. See id.; see also Commonwealth v. Yeomans , 24 A.3d 1044, 1047 (Pa. Super. 2011) (stating that a person who elects to plead guilty is bound by the statements he made during the plea colloquy, and may not later assert grounds for withdrawing the plea which contradict those statements); Commonwealth v. Shekerko , 639 A.2d 810, 815 (Pa. Super. 1994) (concluding that because appellant's plea was knowingly entered, plea counsel was not ineffective).
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 12/27/2018
Image materials not available for display.