Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-2015-1998COMMONWEALTH V. JERMAINE WATK1NS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 98-2015 CRIMINAL IN RE: REVISED OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa.R.A.P. 1925 Guido, J., July ,2003 On July 12, 1999, petitioner entered a plea of guilty to one count of criminal attempt to murder and one count of aggravated assault in full satisfaction of numerous charges filed at this term and number. ~ The plea was entered subject to an agreement whereby petitioner received consecutive sentences of 9 to 18 years imprisonment on each count. No direct appeal was filed. On May 5, 2000, petitioner filed a motion for relief under the Post Conviction Relief Act (42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9541, et seq.). On May 8, 2000, counsel was appointed to represent him. An evidentiary hearing was held on September 1, 2000. At the conclusion of the hearing we denied petitioner's request for relief. Petitioner filed a timely appeal. The Superior Court affirmed our decision by Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 25, 2001.2 On April 18, 2002, Petitioner filed apro se "Motion for Reconsideration of Previously denied PCRA Petition." We treated this matter as a second request for relief under the Post Conviction Relief Act. We appointed counsel to represent petitioner and gave him the opportunity to raise additional grounds for relief. 1 Among the crimes charged was a count of first degree murder for which the Commonwealth had indicated its intention to seek the death penalty. 2 Commonwealth v. ~Fatkins, No. 1687 MDA 2000. NO. 98-2015 CRIMINAL The delay in the resolution of this matter resulted from petitioner's dissatisfaction with his court appointed counsel. He obtained private counsel who requested, and was granted, several continuances. Additionally, we gave counsel the opportunity to file amendments to the petition, and to request an evidentiary hearing if she desired. Counsel filed an amended petition on February 19, 2003. The Commonwealth responded, and both parties filed briefs. On April 17, 2003, we held argument on the record. Petitioner's counsel specifically indicated that she did not wish to have an evidentiary hearing.3 On April 21, 2003, we entered an order denying the second request for relief under the Post Conviction Relief Act. This timely appeal followed. On May 12, 2003, we directed petitioner's counsel to file a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal. On July 9, 2003, we filed an opinion in which we indicated that petitioner's counsel had failed to comply with that order. We have since discovered that petitioner's concise statement was, in fact, filed on May 22, 2003.4 Petitioner raises two issues on appeal. The first deals with the validity of his guilty plea. The second alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to file an appeal on his behalf. Since both of those issues had been raised in the first PCRA 3 Transcript of Proceedings, April 17, 2003, p. 2. 4 While it was clocked in by the Clerk of Courts, it was neither placed in the file nor docketed until our opinion was filed on July 9, 2003. NO. 98-2015 CRIMINAL petition,5 they could not serve as the basis for relief in the instant action.6 DATE Edward E. Guido, J. cc: Jaime M. Keating, Esquire For the Commonwealth Lisa Nabipour, Esquire For the Defendant Jermaine Watkins SCI Somerset 5 See Transcript of Proceedings, September 1, 2000, pp 18-24, 38-40 and our Opinion of November 13, 2000. 6 "PCRA claims are not merely direct appeal claims that are made at a later stage of the proceedings, cloaked in a boilerplate assertion of counsel's ineffectiveness. In essence, they are extraordinary assertions that the system broke down. To establish claims of constitutional error or ineffectiveness of counsel, the petitioner must plead and prove by a preponderance of evidence that the system failed.., that his claim has not been previously litigated or waived, and where a claim was not raised at an earlier stage of the proceedings, that counsel could not have had a rational strategic or tactical reason for failing to litigate these claims earlier." Commonwealth v. Rivers, 567 Pa. 239, 249 786 A.2d 923,929 (2001), (emphasis added).