Com. v. Black, S. ( 2016 )

J-S54033-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
v. :
:
SCOTT ALLAN BLACK, :
:
Appellant : No. 47 WDA 2016
Appeal from the PCRA Order October 2, 2015
in the Court of Common Pleas of Forest County,
Criminal Division, No(s): CP-27-CR-0000046-2013
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OTT and MUSMANNO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED AUGUST 04, 2016
Scott Allan Black (“Black”) appeals, pro se, from the Order dismissing
his first Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) Petition. See 42 Pa.C.S.A.
§§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
On April 27, 2013, Black stabbed Donald Shay and Marcelle Edwards
to death in a mobile home located in Forest County. The Commonwealth
initially sought to pursue capital punishment for the murders. However,
Black subsequently pled guilty to two counts of second-degree murder. The
trial court sentenced Black to two consecutive terms of life in prison. Black
did not file a direct appeal.
On May 22, 2015, Black filed his first PCRA Petition. Joan M. Fairchild,
Esquire (“Fairchild”), was appointed as PCRA counsel. Fairchild filed a
J-S54033-16
Motion to Withdraw as Counsel, along with a Turner/Finley1 no-merit letter.
Black objected, but the PCRA court granted Fairchild’s Motion to Withdraw.
The PCRA court provided Black with a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 Notice of Intent to
Dismiss the Petition. Black filed a pro se Response, after which the PCRA
court dismissed the Petition. Black filed a timely pro se Notice of Appeal.
On appeal Black raises the following questions for our review,
I. [Did the PCRA] court err[] by denying [Black’s] PCRA petition
for newly discovered evidence [,which was] based upon a
“Turner/Finley” letter filed by [Fairchild,] [who had]
irreconcilable differences with [Black?]
II. [Did] the [PCRA] court erroneously misrepresent [] material
facts in defense of the Forest County District Attorney Elizabeth
A. Ziegler [“Ziegler”?]
III. [Whether] fraudulent applications and perjury upon three
candidates affidavits are a crime[,] and [Black] still invokes his
right to file a private criminal complaint against an individual
who committed such acts that has directly affected him[?]
Brief for Appellant at 1 (capitalization omitted).
We review orders dismissing PCRA relief under the following standard:
Our standard of review of an order dismissing PCRA relief is
whether the record supports the PCRA court's determination and
whether the PCRA court’s decision is free of legal error. The
PCRA court’s findings will not be disturbed unless there is no
support for the findings in the certified record.
Commonwealth v. Lawson, 90 A.3d 1, 4 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citations
omitted).
1
See Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988);
Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc).
-2-
J-S54033-16
We will address Black’s first and second claims together. Black argues
that the PCRA court erred in dismissing his Petition as it failed to properly
consider newly discovered evidence. Brief for Appellant at 4. Black
contends that Ziegler’s ineligibility to run for election as District Attorney
should retroactively nullify and void Black’s two convictions of second-degree
murder. Id. at 6-9, 10. Additionally, Black argues that the exculpatory
evidence was unavailable to him at trial as Ziegler’s fraudulent holding of the
District Attorney position, despite the fact that her home was located outside
of the county lines. Id. at 6, 7.
Here, Black fails to offer any authority that shows when a District
Attorney is disqualified from reelection, his or her prosecution of cases
resulting in convictions must be retroactively overturned. See Pa.R.A.P.
2119(a). Additionally, Forest County’s removal of Ziegler from the ballot in
2015 does not impact the entry of Black’s guilty plea in 2014. Indeed,
during his plea colloquy, Black understood the nature of the charges to
which he was pleading guilty; the underlying factual basis for the plea; the
rights he was foregoing, including presumption of innocence and right to trial
by a jury; and the ranges of permissible sentences. See Written Guilty Plea
Colloquy, 02/03/14, at 1-9; see also Commonwealth v. Bedell, 954 A.2d
1209, 1212 (Pa. Super. 2008) (setting forth the requirements of a voluntary
guilty plea and noting that courts may consider the totality of the
circumstances in determining voluntariness of the plea). Thus, the record
-3-
J-S54033-16
confirms that Black voluntarily and knowingly pled guilty to the murders.
See Commonwealth v. McCauley, 797 A.2d 920, 922 (Pa. Super. 2009)
(stating that where the record clearly demonstrates that a guilty plea
colloquy was conducted, during which it became evident that the defendant
understood the nature of the charges against him, the voluntariness of the
plea is established).
Further, Black’s voluntary guilty plea was accepted by a court with
proper jurisdiction. See Commonwealth v. Khorey, 500 A.2d 462, 464
(Pa. Super. 1985) (concluding that even though the Attorney General lacked
jurisdiction to prosecute the defendant, the trial court did not lack
jurisdiction to accept the guilty plea and impose sentence); see also
Commonwealth v. Bethea, 828 A.2d 1066, 1074 (Pa. 2003) (stating that
“all courts of common pleas have statewide subject matter jurisdiction in
cases arising under the Crimes Code.”).2 Accordingly, Black’s first two
claims are without merit.
In his third claim, Black seeks to file a private criminal complaint
against Ziegler and the PCRA court judge. Brief for Appellant at 12.
However, this claim is waived as it was not raised in Black’s PCRA Petition.
See Commonwealth v. Ousley, 21 A.3d 1238, 1242 (Pa. Super. 2011)
2
We note that Black requests a Grazier hearing. See Commonwealth v.
Grazier, 731 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998). Brief for Appellant at 5. However,
because Fairchild properly withdrew as counsel under Turner/Finley, such a
hearing is unnecessary. See Commonwealth v. Robinson, 970 A.2d 455,
456 (Pa. Super. 2009) (en banc) (holding that a Grazier hearing can only
be held if the attorney did not properly withdraw).
-4-
J-S54033-16
(stating that issues not raised in a PCRA petition may not be considered on
appeal). Further, even if Black properly raised the claim, it is not cognizable
under the PCRA. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2).
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/4/2016
-5-