Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-0002837-2007 COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : CHARGES: (1) UNLAWFUL DELIVERY OR : MANUFACTURE OR : POSSESSION WITH INTENT v. : TO DELIVER A SCHEDULE : I CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE : (2) UNLAWFUL DELIVERY OR : MANUFACTURE OR : POSSESSION WITH INTENT : TO DELIVER A SCHEDULE : II CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE JOSHUA RAYMOND : SHUGHART : OTN: K624778-0 : CP-21-CR-2837-2007 IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925 OLER, J., February 26, 2009. 1 In this criminal case, Defendant has filed a pro se appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court from an order which, following a hearing, denied his 2 Motion for Post Conviction Collateral Relief. The bases for the appeal as expressed in Defendant’s statement of matters complained of on appeal are as follows: (I) The Court Committed REVERSIBLE ERROR in Violating PA.R.Crim.P. Rule 907(1), by failing to notify Appellant of it’s intent to Dismiss Petition, and Allowing Appellant 20 days to Respond before a final dismissal was order. (II) Appellant was denied his Fifth Amendment Right To Grand Jury Presentment, Under the United States Constitution, Pursuant to ARTICLE 6, Clause 2, (the Supremacy Clause) of the United States Constitution, and pursuant to Being a fundamental Right Gaurinteed To every United States Citizen, as part of the United States Bill of Rights. And (III) All Prior Counsel(s) rendered Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, In failing To Raise and Litigate The issue of The violation of Appellant’s 1 Defendant’s court-appointed counsel in this PCRA proceeding was excused from further representation of Defendant following the hearing, based upon a no-merit letter. See Order of Court, January 8, 2009. 2 Defendant’s Notice of Appeal, filed January 30, 2009. fundamental right as a United States Citizen To Grand Jury Presentment, Pursuant To Article 6, Clause 2, of the United States Constitution, and the 3 United States Bill of Rights. The rationale for the court’s order from which Defendant has appealed was 4 provided in an opinion of even date therewith accompanying the order. This opinion, in the court’s view, addresses the substantive issues contained in Defendant’s statement of matters complained of on appeal. With respect to the procedural issue raised in the statement—the failure of the court to provide notice to Defendant of its intention to dismiss his motion for post conviction collateral relief pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 907(1)—it may be noted that this Rule applies where the court intends to dispose of such a motion without a hearing. In the present case, the court afforded Defendant a hearing, which was held on December 15, 2008, prior to disposing of his motion, and the Rule has no applicability. Accordingly, the Clerk of Courts is directed to transmit the record to the Superior Court for purposes of its consideration of Defendant’s appeal. BY THE COURT, _________________ J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. Michelle H. Sibert, Esq. Chief Deputy District Attorney For the Commonwealth Joshua Raymond Shughart, HA-0933 SCI Bellefonte, Box A Bellefonte, PA 16823-0820 Defendant pro se 3 Defendant’s Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal Pursuant to PA.R.A.P. 1925(b), filed February 23, 2009. 4 See Opinion and Order of Court, January 8, 2009. 2