Com. v. Kokinda, J. (judgment order)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S66009-13 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. JASON KOKINDA Appellant No. 2687 EDA 2012 Appeal from the PCRA Order September 6, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-39-CR-0004541-2007 BEFORE: PANELLA, J., MUNDY, J., and FITZGERALD, J.* JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED DECEMBER 13, 2013 Appellant, Jason Kokinda, appeals pro se from the order entered September 6, 2012, by the Honorable Robert L. Steinberg, Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, which denied his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ( PCRA ).1 We affirm. On November 12, 2009, Kokinda entered a plea of Guilty but Mentally Ill to four counts of unlawful contact with a minor and one count of criminal use of a communication facility, after he engaged in online sexual communications with an individual whom he believed was a 12-year-old minor, but was actually an undercover agent with the Attorney General s Office. Following a hearing on February 17, 2010, the trial court determined ____________________________________________ * 1 Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 42 PA.CONS.STAT.ANN. ยง 9541, et seq. J-S66009-13 that Kokinda was severally mentally disabled; specifically, a paranoid schizophrenic. Thereafter, the court sentenced Kokinda to 36 to 84 months incarceration. Kokinda filed a pro se PCRA petition on February 22, 2011. Following an oral and written colloquy, the PCRA court permitted Kokinda to proceed pro se and appointed stand-by counsel to assist in the PCRA proceedings. Following a hearing on September 6, 2012, the PCRA denied Kokinda s petition. This timely appeal followed. Both Kokinda and the PCRA court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Our standard of review of a PCRA court s denial of a petition for postconviction relief is well-settled: We must examine whether the record supports the PCRA court s determination and whether the PCRA court s determination is free of legal error. See Commonwealth v. Hall, 867 A.2d 619, 628 (Pa. Super. 2005). The PCRA court s findings will not be disturbed unless there is no support for the findings in the certified record. See Commonwealth v. Carr, 768 A.2d 1164, 1166 (Pa. Super. 2001). Our scope of review is limited by the parameters of the PCRA. See Commonwealth v. Heilman, 867 A.2d 542, 544 (Pa. Super. 2005). On appeal, Kokinda raises seven issues for our review. See Appellant s Brief at 2-3. Kokinda s appellate brief consists of an astounding 46 pages of argument, in which he rails against everything from former United States Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis s decision in Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817 (1938), the apostasy of law and -2- J-S66009-13 the PCRA Court, to JP Morgan, Rockefeller, Rothschild and adhesion contracts. Kokinda s argument is often rambling and disjunctive. With our standard of review in mind, and after examining Kokinda s appellate brief, the ruling of the PCRA court, as well as the applicable law, we find that Judge Steinberg s ruling is supported by the record and free of legal error. We further find that the PCRA court, to the fullest extent possible, addressed Kokinda s issues raised on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of Judge Steinberg s thorough and well-written opinion. See PCRA Court Opinion, filed 2/20/13. Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 12/13/2013 -3-
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.
