Com. v. Carston, T. (memorandum)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S36011-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. TROY CARSTON Appellant No. 1114 EDA 2013 Appeal from the PCRA Order March 15, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0106181-2006 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., JENKINS, J., and FITZGERALD, J.* MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JUNE 27, 2014 Appellant, Troy Carston, appeals from the order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, dismissing his first petition 1 We affirm. In its opinion, the PCRA court fully and correctly set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them. Appellant raises one issue for our review: DID THE [PCRA] COURT ERR WHEN IT DISMISSED RAISED WAS THAT HE WAS DENIED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AS TRIAL AND APPELLATE ____________________________________________ 1 42 Pa.C.S.A. ยงยง 9541-9546. _____________________________ *Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S36011-14 COUNSEL FAILED TO PROPERLY RAISE AND PRESERVE HIS SUPPRESSION CLAIMS? Our standard of review of the denial of a PCRA petition is limited to determination and whether its decision is free of legal error. Commonwealth v. Conway, 14 A.3d 101 (Pa.Super. 2011), appeal denied, 612 Pa. 687, 29 A.3d 795 (2011). This Court grants great deference to the findings of the PCRA court if the record contains any support for those findings. Commonwealth v. Boyd, 923 A.2d 513 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal denied, 593 Pa. 754, 932 A.2d 74 (2007). We give no such deference, Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190, 1194 (Pa.Super. 2012). Further, a petitioner is not entitled to a PCRA hearing as a matter of right; the PCRA court can decline to hold a hearing if there is no genuine issue concerning any material fact, the petitioner is not entitled to PCRA relief, and no purpose would be served by any further proceedings. Commonwealth v. Wah, 42 A.3d 335, 338 (Pa.Super. 2012). After a thorough review of the record, law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Benjamin Lerner, we comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented. (See PCRA Court Opinion, filed August 9, 2013, at 4-8) (finding: trial -2- J-S36011-14 counsel did not file omnibus pretrial motion; instead, trial counsel raised suppression issues orally, including challenge to validity of warrant to search ral suppression motion, and Superior Court lacked arguable merit; off duty police officer witnessed Appellant argue with gunfire coming from inside residence; Appellant fled scene, holding waistband as he ran; witnesses watched Appellant momentarily enter his own home; upon exiting, Appellant no longer clutched waistband; under totality of circumstances, facts stated in affidavit established probable cause not suffer prejudice because jury did not convict him of weapons offenses; even if court had suppressed firearm recovered during search, outcome of proceedings would not have been different). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the PCRA court opinion. Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 6/27/2014 -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.