Opinion
J-A10044-19 No. 3103 EDA 2018
06-25-2019
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. SCOTT MIGNOGNA Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered September 17, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-09-CR-0000085-2015 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and OTT, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.:
Appellant, Scott Mignogna, appeals from the order entered in the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas, which denied his first petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA") at 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm and grant counsel's petition to withdraw.
The PCRA court's opinion accurately and succinctly sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.
Preliminarily, appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and an accompanying brief pursuant to Commonwealth v. Turner , 518 Pa. 491, 544 A.2d 927 (1988) and Commonwealth v. Finley , 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super. 1988) (en banc). Before counsel can be permitted to withdraw from representing a petitioner under the PCRA, Pennsylvania law requires counsel to file a "no-merit" brief or letter pursuant to Turner and Finley. Commonwealth v. Karanicolas , 836 A.2d 940 (Pa.Super. 2003).
[C]ounsel must...submit a "no-merit" letter to the [PCRA] court, or brief on appeal to this Court, detailing the nature and extent of counsel's diligent review of the case, listing the issues which the petitioner wants to have reviewed, explaining why and how those issues lack merit, and requesting permission to withdraw.Commonwealth v. Wrecks , 931 A.2d 717, 721 (Pa.Super. 2007). Counsel must also send to the petitioner a copy of the "no-merit" letter or brief and motion to withdraw and advise petitioner of his right to proceed pro se or with privately retained counsel. Id. "Substantial compliance with these requirements will satisfy the criteria." Karanicolas , supra at 947.
Instantly, appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a Turner/Finley brief detailing the nature of counsel's review and explaining why Appellant's issues lack merit. Counsel's brief also demonstrates he reviewed the certified record and found no meritorious issues for appeal. Counsel notified Appellant of counsel's request to withdraw and advised Appellant regarding his rights. Thus, counsel substantially complied with the Turner/Finley requirements. See Wrecks , supra ; Karanicolas , supra. Accordingly, we proceed to an independent evaluation. See Turner , supra at 494-95, 544 A.2d at 928-29 (stating appellate court must conduct independent analysis and agree with counsel that appeal is frivolous).
Counsel raises the following issues for review:
DID THE [PCRA] COURT ERR IN DENYING APPELLANT'S
PCRA CLAIM THAT TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN NOT CHALLENGING THE SEARCH WARRANT THAT DID NOT CONTAIN A WRITTEN AFFIDAVIT FROM WITNESS BARBARA WHITE IN VIOLATION OF RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 202 AND 206[?]( Turner/Finley Letter Brief at vii).
DID THE [PCRA] COURT ERR IN DENYING APPELLANT'S PCRA CLAIM THAT TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN THE GUILTY PLEA PROCEEDINGS WHERE TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO ADEQUATELY CONSULT WITH APPELLANT PRIOR TO THE PLEA, DID NOT COMPLETE THE WRITTEN GUILTY PLEA COLLOQUY WITH APPELLANT, AND FAILED TO APPROPRIATELY EXPLAIN TO APPELLANT WHAT HE WAS PLEADING GUILTY TO, WHICH LED TO A PLEA THAT WAS NOT KNOWING, INTELLIGENT AND VOLUNTARY[?]
DID THE [PCRA] COURT ERR IN DENYING APPELLANT'S PCRA CLAIM THAT TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN NOT ASSERTING A DEFENSE PURSUANT TO 18 PA.C.S. § 6105(D)(3)(II) ON APPELLANT'S BEHALF TO THE FIREARMS OFFENSES[?]
DID THE [PCRA] COURT ERR IN DENYING APPELLANT'S PCRA CLAIM THAT TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN FAILING TO INVESTIGATE COLLUSION BETWEEN WITNESS BARBARA WHITE AND THE TINICUM TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT?
Appellant has filed a reply brief that he designates as a "counter" brief to the Commonwealth's brief. In the reply brief, Appellant takes issue with a number of facts recited in the Commonwealth's brief. Appellant, however, fails to identify any additional issues for appellate review.
Our standard of review of the denial of a PCRA petition is limited to examining whether the record evidence supports the court's determination and whether the court's decision is free of legal error. Commonwealth v. Ford , 947 A.2d 1251 (Pa.Super. 2008), appeal denied, 598 Pa. 779, 959 A.2d 319 (2008). This Court grants great deference to the findings of the PCRA court if the record contains any support for those findings. Commonwealth v. Boyd , 923 A.2d 513 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal denied, 593 Pa. 754, 932 A.2d 74 (2007). If the record supports a post-conviction court's credibility determination, it is binding on the appellate court. Commonwealth v. Dennis , 609 Pa. 442, 17 A.3d 297 (2011).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Jeffrey L. Finley, P.J., we conclude Appellant's issues merit no relief. The PCRA court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented. ( See PCRA Court Opinion, filed December 14, 2018, at 3-11) (finding: (1) Officer Madden attached affidavit of probable cause to her application for search warrant; complainant, Ms. White, had personal knowledge Appellant possessed guns while he was convicted felon, and Ms. White showed photos to police of Appellant with guns in his home; Officer Madden verified that address Ms. White provided was actually Appellant's address and that Appellant was convicted felon prohibited from possessing firearms; ADA Keightly approved search warrant; plea counsel testified at PCRA hearing that he reviewed search warrant with Appellant and did not see viable challenge to seek suppression based on any defect in search warrant; rules of criminal procedure do not require affidavit from civilian to be attached to search warrant application; no violation of Pa.R.Crim.P. 202, 205 or 206 took place; (2) court conducted oral plea colloquy before accepting Appellant's guilty plea as knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; Appellant signed and executed written colloquy; Appellant acknowledged on record that he committed offenses charged and was guilty of those crimes; plea counsel testified at PCRA hearing that he met with Appellant several times before entry of guilty plea to discuss Appellant's options and rights he would be giving up if he pled guilty; on date of guilty plea, plea counsel's colleague sat with Appellant and went over written plea colloquy with him; court found incredible Appellant's statement that plea counsel's colleague did not review colloquy with Appellant, where Appellant initialed bottom of each page and made no contrary assertions during oral plea colloquy; (3) Appellant did not file application for exemption from prohibition to possess firearm, so counsel could not have offered exemption status as defense; (4) Appellant provided plea counsel no evidence to support Appellant's bald assertions that Ms. White was colluding with police; counsel's review of case also did not support Appellant's speculations; thus, each of Appellant's claims of ineffective assistance of plea counsel lacked merit). The record supports the court's decision to deny PCRA relief on the grounds asserted. See Ford , supra ; Boyd , supra. Following an independent review of the record, we affirm and grant counsel's petition to withdraw.
Order affirmed; counsel's petition to withdraw is granted. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 6/25/19
Image materials not available for display.