HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-0991-1998
COMMONWEALTH
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
NICHOLAS A. PRACHT
CP-2l-CR-099l-l998
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925
OLER, 1., February 1, 2006.
This criminal case stems from Defendant's conviction on four counts of
involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and four counts of corruption of minors. 1
Defendant's judgment of sentence was affirmed by the Pennsylvania Superior
Court in 200l? Defendant is currently incarcerated at the Graterford State
Correctional Institution in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.
Defendant's first request for post-conviction relief was filed during the
pendency of his direct appeal and was dismissed for that reason.3 Defendant's
second request for post-conviction relief, which raised a plethora of issues, was the
subject of a hearing and was denied by this court.4 The denial was appealed to the
Pennsylvania Superior Court, and the appeal was then withdrawn by Defendant.5
Defendant's third request for post-conviction relief, which was
accompanied by a number of hand-written documents, was not the subject of a
hearing and was denied by this court.6 Defendant's fourth request for post-
1 Verdict and Order of Court, Oct. 28, 1998.
2 Order of Superior Court, 106 MDA 1999, May 8, 2001.
3 Defendant's Motion for Post-Conviction Collateral Relief, filed Aug. 25, 1999; Order of Court,
Dec. 13, 1999.
4 Defendant's Motion for Post-Conviction Collateral Relief, filed Mar. 25, 2002; Order of Court,
Dec. 31,2003.
5 Notice of Appeal, filed Mar. 1,2004; Notice of Discontinuance, filed July 9,2004.
6 Defendant's Motion for Post-Conviction Collateral Relief et al., filed Sept. 2, 2004; Order of
Court, Dec. 9,2004; Order of Court, Jan. 10,2005.
conviction relief was not the subject of a hearing and was denied by this court. 7
Finally, within a one-month period, Defendant filed his fifth and sixth requests for
post-conviction relief, neither of which was the subject of a hearing. 8 Both of
these requests for post-conviction relief were denied by this court.9
On September 16, 2005, Defendant filed a notice of appeal, stating he was
appealing from "the order entered in this matter on the 8th day of August, 2005.,,10
This court ordered Defendant to file a statement of matters complained of on
appeal, 1 1 which Defendant responded to by filing three different statements of
matters complained of on appeal. 12 Unable to determine which of the court's four
August 8, 2005, orders Defendant's notice of appeal was referring to, this court
ordered Defendant to supplement the notice of appeal with a copy of the order( s)
appealed from. 13 Defendant filed copies of all four orders on November 7, 2005.14
This opinion in support of the orders appealed from is written pursuant to
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a).
7 Defendant's Motion for Post-Conviction Collateral Relief, filed Feb. 16, 2005; Order of Court,
Mar. 30,2005; Order of Court, June 30, 2005.
8 Defendant's Motion for Post-Conviction Collateral Relief, filed June 6, 2005; Defendant's
Motion for Post-Conviction Collateral Relief, filed July 5, 2005.
9 Order of Court, July 11, 2005 (giving notice of intent to deny PCRA filed July 5, 2005); Order
of Court, Aug. 8, 2005 (order denying PCRA filed July 5, 2005); Order of Court, Aug. 8, 2005
(giving notice of intent to deny PCRA filed June 6, 2005); Order of Court, Sept. 6, 2005 (order
denying PCRA filed June 6, 2005).
10 Notice of Appeal, filed Sept. 16,2005.
11 Order of Court, Sept. 20, 2005.
12 # 1 Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on This PCRA Appeal, filed Oct. 6, 2005; #2
Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on This PCRA Appeal, filed Oct. 6, 2005; #3
Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on This PCRA Appeal, filed Oct. 6,2005.
13 Order of Court, Oct. 21,2005.
14 Notice of Appeal, filed Nov. 7, 2005. Defendant filed four separate copies of the same notice
of appeal filed on September 16, 2005. Attached to each copy of the notice of appeal was a
corresponding order from which Defendant was appealing.
2
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On October 28, 1998, Defendant was found guilty by a jury of four counts
of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and four counts of corruption of
minors,15 and on December 8, 1998, he was sentenced by the Honorable George E.
Hoffer to a term of imprisonment of six to fifteen years. 16 Defendant then filed a
direct appeal from the judgment of sentence to the Superior Court on January 7,
1999.17 The Superior Court affirmed Defendant's judgment of sentence on May 8,
2001.1S
During the pendency of the direct appeal, Defendant filed his first request
for post-conviction relief,19 which was dismissed as premature?O Defendant's
second request for post-conviction relief was filed on March 25, 2002?1 A
hearing was held on this petition on July 23, 2003,22 and the petition was denied
on December 31, 2003.23 The denial of this petition was accompanied by a 43-
page opinion which set forth a detailed history of the case and a review of the
many issues raised in Defendant's petition?4 A copy of the opinion on
Defendant's second request for post-conviction relief is attached to this opinion as
an appendix. On March 1, 2004, Defendant appealed the denial of his petition for
15 Verdict and Order of Court, Oct. 28, 1998.
16 In re: Sentence Colloquy, Dec. 8, 1998.
17 Defendant's Notice of Appeal, filed Jan. 7, 1999.
18 Order of Superior Court, 106 MDA 1999, May 8, 2001.
19 Defendant's Motion for Post-Conviction Collateral Relief, filed Aug. 25, 1999.
20 Order of Court, Dec. 13, 1999.
21 Defendant's Motion for Post-Conviction Collateral Relief, filed Mar. 25, 2002.
22 Order of Court, July 23,2003.
23 Order of Court, Dec. 31,2003.
24 Commonwealth v. Pracht, No. CP-2l-CR-099l-l998 (Cumberland County, Dec. 31,2003).
3
post-conviction relief to the Superior Court.25 Defendant later discontinued this
126
appea .
Defendant's third request for post -conviction relief was filed on September
2, 2004, and was accompanied by a number of other related petitions, motions,
and applications?7 On December 9, 2004, this court, pursuant to Pennsylvania
Rule of Criminal Procedure 907(1), gave notice of its intent to deny Defendant's
third petition,28 and on January 10, 2005, denied Defendant's petition?9 On
January 14, 2005, this court denied Defendant's petition for reconsideration of his
third post-conviction relief petition.30 No appeal was filed from the denial of this
petition for post-conviction relief.
Defendant's fourth request for post-conviction relief was filed on February
16, 2005?1 On March 30, 2005, this court, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of
Criminal Procedure 907(1), gave notice of its intent to deny Defendant's fourth
petition,32 and on June 30, 2005, denied Defendant's petition.33
Defendant's fifth and sixth requests for post -conviction relief were filed on
June 6, 2005, and July 5, 2005.34 This court, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of
Criminal Procedure 907(1), gave notice of its intent to deny Defendant's fifth and
sixth petitions,35 and both petitions were thereafter denied without a hearing. 36
25 Notice of Appeal, filed Mar. 1,2004. Defendant's appeal was docketed at 331 MDA 2004.
26 Notice of Discontinuance, filed July 9,2004.
27 Defendant's Motion for Post-Conviction Collateral Relief et al., filed Sept. 2,2004.
28 Order of Court, Dec. 9,2004.
29 Order of Court, Jan. 10, 2005.
30 Order of Court, Jan. 14,2005.
31 Defendant's Motion for Post-Conviction Collateral Relief, filed Feb. 16,2005.
32 Order of Court, Mar. 30, 2005.
33 Order of Court, June 30, 2005.
34 Defendant's Motion for Post-Conviction Collateral Relief, filed June 6, 2005; Defendant's
Motion for Post-Conviction Collateral Relief, filed July 5, 2005.
35 Order of Court, July 11,2005 (giving notice of intent to deny PCRA filed July 5,2005); Order
of Court, Aug. 8, 2005 (giving notice of intent to deny PCRA filed June 6, 2005).
4
On September 16, 2005, Defendant filed a notice of appeal, which stated
that Defendant was appealing from "the order entered in this matter on the 8th day
of August, 2005.,,37 Because this court entered four orders concerning this case on
August 8, 2005, the court ordered Defendant to supplement his notice of appeal
with copies of the specific orders from which he was appealing. 38 On November
7, 2005, Defendant filed copies of those orders.39 The orders that Defendant is
appealing from are as follows: (1) a denial of reargument on this court's dismissal
of Defendant's February 16,2005, petition for post-conviction relief,40 (2) a denial
of reargument on this court's order stating its intent to dismiss Defendant's July 5,
2005, petition for post-conviction relief,41 (3) a dismissal of Defendant's July 5,
2005, petition for post-conviction relief,42 and (4) the court's notice of its intent to
dismiss Defendant's June 6, 2005, petition for post-conviction relief.43
36 Order of Court, Aug. 8,2005 (order denying PCRA filed July 5,2005); Order of Court, Sept. 6,
2005 (order denying PCRA filed June 6, 2005).
37 Notice of Appeal, filed Sept. 16,2005.
38 Order of Court, Oct. 21,2005.
39 Notice of Appeal, filed Nov. 7, 2005. Defendant filed four separate copies of the same notice
of appeal filed on September 16, 2005. Attached to each copy of the notice of appeal was a
corresponding order from which Defendant was appealing.
40 Order of Court, Aug. 8, 2005. The order from which Defendant is appealing reads as follows:
"[U]pon consideration of Defendant's 'Petition for Reargument ofPCRA,' filed August 3,2005,
and the Court having dismissed Defendant's 'Motion for Post-Conviction Collateral Relief to
which this petition pertains on June 30, 2005, Defendant's 'Petition for Reargument ofPCRA' is
denied. "
41 Order of Court, Aug. 8, 2005. The order from which Defendant is appealing reads as follows:
"[U]pon consideration of Defendant's 'Petition for Reargument of PCRA' on Defendant's
'Motion for Post-Conviction Collateral Relief,' filed July 5, 2005, Defendant's 'Petition for
Reargument of PCRA' is denied."
42 Order of Court, Aug. 8, 2005. The order from which Defendant is appealing reads as follows:
"[F]ollowing notice provided by Order of Court dated July 11, 2005, in accordance with
Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 907(1), of the court's intention to dismiss Defendant's
Motion for Post-Conviction Collateral Relief, Defendant's Motion for Post-Conviction Collateral
Relief, filed July 5,2005, is dismissed."
43 Order of Court, Aug. 8, 2005. The order from which Defendant is appealing reads as follows:
"[U]pon consideration of Defendant's Motion for Post-Conviction Collateral Relief, filed June 6,
2005, notice is hereby given pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 907(1) of the
court's intention to dismiss Defendant's petition. . . ."
5
The court also ordered Defendant to file a statement of matters complained
of on appeal,44 to which Defendant responded by filing three different statements
of matters complained of on appeal. 45 As with Defendant's prior filings with this
court, the contents of the three statements are of questionable import, duplicative
of previously litigated issues, or incomprehensible. The handwritten contents of
the statements of matters complained of on appeal are set forth, to the best of the
court's ability, in the following paragraphs:
Defendant's first statement of matters complained of on appeal states:
1. This PCRAI Appeal relies on a new (watershed) rule of constitutional law
made retroactive to cases currently on collateral review by the Us. Supreme
Court [via U.S. v. Booker (04-105) and US v. Fanfan (04-105)] which
basically held that Apprendi v. US/NJ (120 S.ct. 2348) rule applies to
(mental) Death Penalty case sexual violent predator determination hearings.
2. But for the (above) constitutional error no reasonable fact finder would have
found the petitioner guilty of the offenses charged him.
3. This PCRAI Appeal relies on the petitioner's claim that there is no effective
appellate process in Pennsylvania since all attempts by pro-se
S. VP. 's/inmates is so fundamentally unfair due to Commonwealth
impediments and obstructions that petitioner who is now legally and/or
absolutely innocent has no way to overcome said futility/impediments see
Rose v. Lundy (102 S.ct. 1198) (miscarriage of justice/manifest injustice ).46
Defendant's second statement of matters complained of on appeal
states:
1. This PCRAI Appeal relies on a new (watershed) rule of constitutional law
made retroactive to cases currently on collateral review by the Us. Supreme
Court [via Roper v. Simmons I Atkins v. Virginia (03-633)] which basically
held that the states cannot punish the mentally deficient (i.e. S. VP. 's) for
their status/condition.
2. But for the (above) constitutional error no reasonable fact-finder would have
found the petitioner guilty of the offenses charged him.
44 Order of Court, Sept. 20, 2005.
45 # 1 Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on This PCRA Appeal, filed Oct. 6, 2005; #2
Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on This PCRA Appeal, filed Oct. 6, 2005; #3
Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on This PCRA Appeal, filed Oct. 6,2005.
46 # 1 A Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on This PCRA Appeal, filed Oct. 6, 2005
(words in italics were circled in the original document).
6
3. This PCRA/ Appeal relies on the petitioner's claim that there is no effective
appellate process in Pennsylvania since all attempts by pro-se/S VP. inmates
is so fundamentally unfair due to Commonwealth impediments and
obstructions that petitioner who is now legally and/or absolutely innocent has
no way to overcome said impediments/futility (miscarriage of
justice/manifest injustice) see Rose v. Lundy (102 S.ct. 1198).47
Defendant's third statement of matters complained of on appeal states:
1. This PCRA/ Appeal relies on a new (watershed) rule of constitutional law
made retroactive to cases currently on collateral review by the US Supreme
Court [via U.S. v. Ohio D.o.C. (04- ) (2005) legalizing witchcraft's and
satanism's free exercise/free establishment's expanded rights/petitioner
is/was a mystic engaging in pagan fertility rites with youth who were celtic
druids).
2. But for the (above) constitutional error no reasonable fact-finder would have
found the petitioner guilty of the offenses charged him.
3. This PCRA/ Appeal relies on the petitioner's claim that there is no effective
appellate process in Pennsylvania since all attempts by pro-se/S VP. inmates
is so fundamentally unfair due to Commonwealth impediments and
obstructions that petitioner who is now legally and/or absolutely innocent has
no way to overcome said impediments/futility (miscarriage of
justice/manifest injustice) see Rose v. Lundy (102 S.ct. 1198).48
DISCUSSION
Order Denying Reargument of Court's Order Dismissing Defendant's
February 16, 2005, PCRA Petition. With regard to Defendant's petition for post-
conviction relief filed February 16, 2005, this court entered an order on August 8,
2005, denying reargument on its order dated June 30, 2005, dismissing
Defendant's petition. Several principles of law are pertinent to the entry of this
order.
First, the decision to grant or deny reargument of a motion or petition is
within "the sound discretion of the trial court ...." Moore v. Moore, 535 Pa. 18,
25, 634 A.2d 163, 166 (1993).
47 #2 A Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on This PCRA Appeal, filed Oct. 6, 2005
(words in italics were circled in the original document).
48 #3 A Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on This PCRA Appeal, filed Oct. 6, 2005
(words in italics were circled in the original document).
7
Second, if such a motion is not filed within thirty days of the court's entry
of the order from which petitioner seeks relief, "the court is without jurisdiction to
reconsider its judgment." Stephens v. Messick, 2002 P A Super. 117, ,-r 24, 799
A.2d 793, 801. Third, filing a motion for reconsideration does not stay the
applicable appeal period. Moore, 535 Pa. at 26, 634 A.2d at 167.
Fourth, under Section 9543 of the Judicial Code, a request for post-
conviction relief is not available where "the allegation of error [relied upon by the
petitioner] has... been previously litigated or waived." Act of May 13, 1982, P.L.
417, 9 2, as amended, 42 Pa. c.s. 9 9543(a)(3). An issue is deemed previously
litigated if "the highest appellate court in which the petitioner could have had
review as a matter of right has ruled on the merits of the issue[,]" or if "it has been
raised and decided in a proceeding collaterally attacking the conviction or
sentence." Id 9 9544(a). An issue is deemed waived if "the petitioner could have
raised it but failed to do so before trial, at trial, ... on appeal or in a prior state
postconviction proceeding." Id 9 9544(b).
"[R]epetitive applications for post conviction relief ignore 'the Waiver
provisions [of the Act] ... and render the "finally litigated" concept illusory. ",
Place, The Post-Conviction Relief Act 9 5.01, at 98 (rev. ed. 2004).
Finally, as a general proposition, Pennsylvania courts are not required to
entertain submissions which are incoherent, incomprehensible or unintelligible.
See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Albert, 522 Pa. 331, 561 A.2d 736 (1989);
Commonwealth ex rei. Swann v. Shovlin, 423 Pa. 26,223 A.2d 1 (1966).
Defendant's appeal from the denial of his motion for reargument of the
court's June 30, 2005, order dismissing the February 16, 2005, petition for post-
conviction relief is untenable for the following reasons: (1) a denial of reargument
is not generally an abuse of discretion; (2) the motion for reargument was filed
more than thirty days after entry of the order sought to be affected and thus
exceeded this court's jurisdictional boundaries; (3) the appeal period with respect
to the order sought to be affected by reargument passed prior to the filing of an
8
appeal; and (4) Defendant's underlying petition for post-conviction relief lacked
merit in that it raised issues that were not intelligibly expressed or irrelevant, were
preempted by prior petition, and were finally litigated or waived.
Order Denying Reargument of Court's Order Stating Its Intent To Dismiss
Defendant's July 5, 2005, PCRA Petition. With regard to Defendant's petition for
post-conviction relief filed July 5, 2005, this court entered an order on August 8,
2005, denying reargument of its order dated July 11, 2005, stating its intent to
dismiss Defendant's petition for post-conviction relief. Several principles of law
are pertinent to the entry of this order.
First, the decision to grant or deny reargument of a motion or petition is
within "the sound discretion of the trial court ...." Moore v. Moore, 535 Pa. 18,
25, 634 A.2d 163, 166 (1993).
Second, if such a motion is not filed within thirty days of the court's entry
of the order from which petitioner seeks relief, "the court is without jurisdiction to
reconsider its judgment." Stephens v. Messick, 2002 P A Super. 117, ,-r 24, 799
A.2d 793, 801.
Third, under Section 9543 of the Judicial Code, a request for post-
conviction relief is not available where "the allegation of error [relied upon by the
petitioner] has... been previously litigated or waived." Act of May 13, 1982, P.L.
417, 9 2, as amended, 42 Pa. c.s. 9 9543(a)(3). An issue is deemed previously
litigated if "the highest appellate court in which the petitioner could have had
review as a matter of right has ruled on the merits of the issue[,]" or if "it has been
raised and decided in a proceeding collaterally attacking the conviction or
sentence." Id 9 9544(a). An issue is deemed waived if "the petitioner could have
raised it but failed to do so before trial, at trial, ... on appeal or in a prior state
postconviction proceeding." Id 9 9544(b).
"[R]epetitive applications for post-conviction relief ignore 'the Waiver
provisions [of the Act] ... and render the "finally litigated" concept illusory. ",
Place, The Post-Conviction Relief Act 9 5.01, at 98 (rev. ed. 2004).
9
Finally, as a general proposition, Pennsylvania courts are not required to
entertain submissions which are incoherent, incomprehensible or unintelligible.
See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Albert, 522 Pa. 331, 561 A.2d 736 (1989);
Commonwealth ex rei. Swann v. Shovlin, 423 Pa. 26,223 A.2d 1 (1966).
Defendant's appeal from the denial of his motion for reargument of the
court's July 11, 2005, order stating its intent to dismiss the July 5, 2005, petition
for post-conviction relief is untenable for the following reasons: (1) a denial of
reargument is not generally an abuse of discretion; (2) the motion for reargument
was filed more than thirty days after entry of the order sought to be affected and
thus exceeded this court's jurisdictional boundaries; and (3) Defendant's
underlying petition for post-conviction relief lacked merit in that it raised issues
that were not intelligibly expressed or irrelevant, were preempted by prior petition,
and were finally litigated or waived.
Order Dismissing Defendant's July 5, 2005, PCRA Petition. In addition to
the aforementioned order, this court entered an additional order on August 8,
2005, dismissing Defendant's July 11, 2005, petition for post-conviction relief.
Several principles of law are pertinent to the entry of this order.
First, under Section 9543 of the Judicial Code, a request for post-conviction
relief is not available where "the allegation of error [relied upon by the petitioner]
has... been previously litigated or waived." Act of May 13, 1982, P.L. 417, 9 2,
as amended, 42 Pa. c.s. 9 9543(a)(3). An issue is deemed previously litigated if
"the highest appellate court in which the petitioner could have had review as a
matter of right has ruled on the merits of the issue[,]" or if "it has been raised and
decided in a proceeding collaterally attacking the conviction or sentence." Id 9
9544(a). An issue is deemed waived if "the petitioner could have raised it but
failed to do so before trial, at trial, ... on appeal or in a prior state postconviction
proceeding." Id 9 9544(b).
10
"[R]epetitive applications for post-conviction relief ignore 'the Waiver
provisions [of the Act] ... and render the "finally litigated" concept illusory. ",
Place, The Post-Conviction Relief Act 9 5.01, at 98 (rev. ed. 2004).
Second, as a general proposition, Pennsylvania courts are not required to
entertain submissions which are incoherent, incomprehensible or unintelligible.
See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Albert, 522 Pa. 331, 561 A.2d 736 (1989);
Commonwealth ex rei. Swann v. Shovlin, 423 Pa. 26,223 A.2d 1 (1966).
Defendant's appeal from the dismissal of his July 5,2005, petition for post-
conviction relief is untenable because Defendant's underlying petition for post-
conviction relief lacked merit in that it raised issues that were not intelligibly
expressed or irrelevant, were preempted by prior petition, and were finally
litigated or waived.
Order NotifYing Defendant of Court's Intent To Dismiss Defendant's
Petition Filed June 6, 2005. With regard to Defendant's petition for post-
conviction relief filed June 6, 2005, this court entered an order on August 8, 2005,
giving notice of its intent to dismiss Defendant's petition. Several principles of
law are pertinent to the entry of this order.
First, "[i]t is fundamental law in this Commonwealth that an appeal will lie
only from final orders, unless otherwise expressly permitted by statute." rc.R.
Realty, Inc. v. Cox, 472 Pa. 331, 337, 372 A.2d 721, 724 (1977). An order
becomes final when it disposes of all the claims of all the parties. Pa. RA.P.
341 (b). Because a court's order stating its intent to dismiss a defendant's petition
for post-conviction relief does not dispose of defendant's claims, such an order
cannot be considered a final order. See Pa. R Crim. P. 907(1); Pa. RA.P. 34l(b).
Second, under Section 9543 of the Judicial Code, a request for post-
conviction relief is not available where "the allegation of error [relied upon by the
petitioner] has... been previously litigated or waived." Act of May 13, 1982, P.L.
417, 9 2, as amended, 42 Pa. c.s. 9 9543(a)(3). An issue is deemed previously
litigated if "the highest appellate court in which the petitioner could have had
11
review as a matter of right has ruled on the merits of the issue[,]" or if "it has been
raised and decided in a proceeding collaterally attacking the conviction or
sentence." Id 9 9544(a). An issue is deemed waived if "the petitioner could have
raised it but failed to do so before trial, at trial, ... on appeal or in a prior state
postconviction proceeding." Id 9 9544(b).
"[R]epetitive applications for post-conviction relief ignore 'the Waiver
provisions [of the Act] ... and render the "finally litigated" concept illusory. ",
Place, The Post-Conviction Relief Act 9 5.01, at 98 (rev. ed. 2004).
Finally, as a general proposition, Pennsylvania courts are not required to
entertain submissions which are incoherent, incomprehensible or unintelligible.
See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Albert, 522 Pa. 331, 561 A.2d 736 (1989);
Commonwealth ex rei. Swann v. Shovlin, 423 Pa. 26,223 A.2d 1 (1966).
Defendant's appeal from the court's August 8, 2005, order giving notice to
Defendant of the court's intent to dismiss his June 6, 2005, petition for post-
conviction relief is untenable for the following reasons: (1) Defendant's appeal
from the order giving notice of the court's intent to dismiss Defendant's petition
for post-conviction relief is interlocutory in nature; and (2) Defendant's underlying
petition for post-conviction relief lacked merit in that it raised issues that were not
intelligibly expressed or irrelevant, were preempted by prior petition, and were
finally litigated or waived.
BY THE COURT,
1. Wesley Oler, Jr., 1.
12
Office of the District Attorney
Nicholas A. Pracht, DV -0813
SCI -Graterford
P.O. Box 246, Route 29
Collegeville, P A 19428
Defendant, Pro Se
[Certified and Regular Mail]
13