Com. v. Weist, A (memorandum)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J-S76044-12 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. ALAN RICHARD WEIST, Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 1993 EDA 2012 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered June 1, 2012, In the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County, Criminal Division, at No. CP-52-CR-0000240-2009. BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., BENDER and SHOGAN, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED MAY 15, 2013 Appellant, Alan Richard Weist, appeals pro se from the order denying his petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ( PCRA ), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm. Appellant was charged with four (4) counts each of rape of a child, 1 statutory sexual assault,2 corruption of minors,3 and eight (8) counts of indecent assault.4 On January 7, 2011, Appellant entered a guilty plea to two of the rape charges. The plea agreement provided for a minimum of 1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3121(c). 2 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3122.1(a)(1). 3 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6301(a). 4 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3126(a)(7), 3126(a)(8). J-S76044-12 seven years and a maximum of twenty years on each count, and ordered that the terms be served consecutively. Pursuant to the agreement, the remaining eighteen counts against Appellant were dismissed. On March 31, 2011, Appellant was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement. At the time of sentencing, Appellant made a verbal motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which was denied. Subsequently, Appellant s counsel filed a second motion seeking to withdraw the guilty plea. That motion was also denied. Appellant filed a direct appeal to this Court but failed to perfect his appeal. On December 14, 2011, Appellant, pro se, filed a PCRA petition. On December 20, 2011, PCRA counsel was appointed. Counsel filed a motion to withdraw pursuant to Turner/Finley5 on March 2, 2012. On March 20, 2012, PCRA counsel was permitted to withdraw. After Appellant filed a pro se objection to the dismissal of the PCRA petition, the PCRA court conducted a hearing on May 8, 2012. After the hearing, the PCRA court dismissed Appellant s petition by order entered June 1, 2012. On June 18, 2012, Appellant, pro se, filed the instant appeal. Appellant raises the following issues on appeal: 1. Was the Appellant denied an opportunity to amend his PCRA petition, in a timely fashion, under Pa.R.Crim.Proc. 905(A)? See Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988); Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc). 5 -2- J-S76044-12 2. Defense counsel was ineffective for denying his client s wishes for trial, as the client continually asserted his innocence. The contradictory evidence, which was available for trial, would have raised reasonable doubt with the jury and found the Appellant innocent. Did counsel s failure breach not only his client s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment trial rights; but, the client s and the public s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to trial; and, his client s right to the effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments? 3. Was a miscarriage of justice perpetrated upon the client by both defense counsel and the prosecution regarding the failure to produce the available and known exculpatory evidence; thereby violating the Appellant s Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to Due Process? Appellant s Brief at 4. When reviewing the propriety of an order granting or denying PCRA relief, this Court is limited to determining whether the evidence of record supports the determination of the PCRA court and whether the ruling is free of legal error. Commonwealth v. Boyd, 923 A.2d 513, 515 (Pa. Super. 2007), appeal denied, 593 Pa. 754, 932 A.2d 74 (2007). Great deference is granted to the findings of the PCRA court, and these findings will not be disturbed unless they have no support in the certified record. Commonwealth v. Wilson, 824 A.2d 331, 333 (Pa. Super. 2003), appeal denied, 576 Pa. 712, 839 A.2d 352 (2003). Upon review of the issues raised, the certified record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable legal authority, we conclude that the thorough PCRA court opinion entered on August 10, 2012 comprehensively and -3- J-S76044-12 correctly disposes of Appellant s appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Appellant s PCRA petition, and we do so based on the PCRA court s opinion. See PCRA Court Opinion, 8/10/12. The parties are directed to attach a copy of that opinion in the event of further proceedings in this matter. Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. Prothonotary Date: 5/15/2013 -4-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.