Com. v. Shuford, G. (memorandum)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J-S19007-13 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. GLENN M. SHUFORD, Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 563 WDA 2012 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered March 7, 2012, In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County, Criminal Division, at No. CP-26-CR-0001142-2008. BEFORE: SHOGAN, OTT and STRASSBURGER*, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: Filed: May 15, 2013 Appellant, Glenn M. Shuford, appeals from the order entered on March 7, 2012 in the Fayette County Court of Common Pleas that denied his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ( PCRA ), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm. The record reflects that on May 11, 2007, Uniontown Police Officers David Hromada, Jr. and Jonathan Grabiak were at the intersection of Searlight and Dunlap Streets in the City of Uniontown, Fayette County, Pennsylvania. N.T., 10/9/08, at 7-8. The officers were at this location for an incident unrelated to Appellant s case. Id. at 8. While at the intersection, Officers Hromada and Grabiak saw a white Oldsmobile approach and park near their location. Id. at 10. _____________________ *Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. The driver of the J-S19007-13 Oldsmobile, who was later identified as Appellant, exited the vehicle. Id. At this time, the officers saw that Appellant was having difficulty keeping his balance. Id. at 11. The officers approached Appellant and saw that he had glassy, bloodshot eyes. Id. at 11-12. Appellant spoke to the officers in a loud voice, slurred his speech, and smelled of alcohol. Id. at 12, 23. As a result of these observations, Appellant was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence. Id. at 12. Officer Grabiak searched Appellant incident to the arrest and discovered that Appellant was in possession of crack cocaine and $1532.20 in cash. transported to the police station. Id. at 12-13, 25. Id. at 37. Appellant was then Prior to any questioning, Appellant spontaneously stated that he had ingested ecstasy and beer. Id. Appellant then said that he would go to jail for the drugs and that he liked it in jail. Id. at 38. Appellant then stated I really fucked up. Id. at 38. Following a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of one count of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance (cocaine), 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30), one count of possession of a controlled substance (cocaine) by a person not registered, 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16), and one count of driving under the influence, 75 Pa.C.S.A § 3802(a)(1). N.T., 10/9/08, at 86-87. Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate term of three to six years of incarceration. N.T., 10/21/08, at 4-6. Appellant filed a direct appeal, and this Court affirmed the judgment of sentence on June 15, 2009. -2- J-S19007-13 Commonwealth v. Shuford, 1842 WDA 2008, unpublished memorandum, 981 A.2d 322 (Pa. Super. 2009), appeal denied, 603 Pa. 709, 985 A.2d 219 (2009). On April 29, 2010, Appellant filed a timely PCRA petition. The PCRA court appointed counsel, and Appellant filed an amended PCRA petition on October 22, 2010. Following a hearing, the PCRA court denied Appellant s petition for relief in an order filed March 7, 2012. Appellant timely appealed. On appeal, Appellant raises the following issues for this Court s consideration: I. WHETHER TRIAL COUNSEL [WAS] INEFFECTIVE BY FAILING TO FILE ANY PRETRIAL SUPPRESSION MOTIONS AS TO THE FOLLOWING ISSUES A. THE APPELLANT S STOP WAS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE; B. THE APPELLANT, ALTHOUGH IN CUSTODY WAS NEVER PROVIDED HIS MIRANDA WARNINGS IN VIOLATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND THESE STATEMENTS WERE ILLEGALLY USED AT TRIAL IN THE MATTER; C. TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO MOVE TO SEVER THE CHARGES? 2. WHETHER TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE BY FAILING TO CALL WITNESSES ON THE APPELLANT S BEHALF WITH REGARD TO HIS PERSONAL DRUG PROBLEM AND THAT THE DRUGS FOUND IN ONE BAGGIE IN HIS POCKET WERE FOR HIS PERSONAL USE? 3. WHETHER TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO FILE ANY POST-SENTENCE MOTIONS ON THE APPELLANT S BEHALF AND FOR FAILING TO PROPERLY -3- J-S19007-13 PRESERVE OBJECTIONS TO INADMISSIBLE STATEMENTS MADE AT TRIAL REGARDING STATEMENTS DEFENDANT MADE WHILE IN CUSTODY BUT WITHOUT THE CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED MIRANDA WARNINGS? 4. WHETHER TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN THAT THE HABEAS CORPUS HEARING WAS NOT A PRE-TRIAL SUPPRESSION MOTION AND EVIDENCE ELICITED FROM SAID HEARING WOULD HAVE LED A REASONABLE ATTORNEY TO FILE THE NECESSARY PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS DUE TO ADMISSIONS UNDER OATH THAT THE APPELLANT WAS STOPPED WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE, THUS ELICITING TESTIMONY THAT THE SEARCH OF HIS PERSON AND THE VEHICLE WERE ILLEGAL AS WERE ANY STATEMENTS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AT THIS TIME? Appellant s Brief at 6. 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). PCRA relief may be granted for ineffective assistance of counsel that so undermined the truth-determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2)(ii). When analyzing an ineffectiveness claim, we begin with the presumption -4- J-S19007-13 that counsel is effective, meaning that the burden of establishing the opposite falls on the petitioner. Commonwealth v. Rios, 591 Pa. 583, 609, 920 A.2d 790, 805 (2007). In order to obtain relief on an ineffectiveness claim under the PCRA, a petitioner must prove that: 1) the underlying claim is of arguable merit; 2) the counsel s performance lacked a reasonable basis; and 3) the ineffectiveness of counsel caused petitioner prejudice. Id. A failure to satisfy any one of the three prongs of the test for ineffectiveness requires rejection of the claim. Commonwealth v. Ali, 608 Pa. 71, 86, 10 A.3d 282, 291 (2010). Upon review, we are constrained to point out that Appellant s brief is largely repetitive with minimal actual argument. Additionally, we conclude that the issues raised on appeal were comprehensively and correctly addressed by the PCRA court in its opinion.1 Accordingly, after reviewing the briefs, the certified record, and the applicable authority, we affirm the PCRA court s order, and we do so based on the PCRA court s March 7, 2012 opinion. The parties are directed to attach a copy of that opinion in the event of further proceedings in this matter. Order affirmed. OTT, J., Concurs in the Result. While the trial court does not address Appellant s claim concerning severance, we conclude this issue is waived for the failure to develop any argument in support. Commonwealth v. Palo, 24 A.3d 1050, 1059 (Pa. Super. 2011). 1 -5- J-S19007-13 Judgment Entered Deputy Prothonotary Date: May 15, 2013 -6-

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.