Com. v. Miller, S. (memorandum)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S52033-17 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. SHANNON MILLER Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 2085 MDA 2016 Appeal from the PCRA Order December 2, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-38-CR-0002131-2015 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., LAZARUS, J., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 08, 2017 Appellant, Shannon Miller, appeals from the order entered in the Lebanon County Court of Common Pleas, which denied her first petition brought pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”).1 We affirm. In its opinion, the PCRA court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them. We add only that Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on December 20, 2016. On December 21, 2016, the court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and Appellant timely complied on December 29, 2016. Appellant raises the following issues for our review: ____________________________________________ 1 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. J-S52033-17 WHETHER PLEA COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO INTERVIEW EARL MILLER? WHETHER PLEA COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO SEEK AN INTERVIEW WITH APPELLANT’S CODEFENDANT, ANDREW HOUCK? WHETHER PLEA COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO COMMUNICATE WITH APPELLANT REGARDING DISCOVERY? (Appellant’s Brief at 4). Our standard of review of the denial of a PCRA petition is limited to examining whether the record supports the court’s determination and whether the court’s decision is free of legal error. Commonwealth v. Ford, 947 A.2d 1251 (Pa.Super. 2008), appeal denied, 598 Pa. 779, 959 A.2d 319 (2008). 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). Credibility determinations are within the province of the PCRA court when a hearing is held on the matter. Rathfon, 899 A.2d 365 (Pa.Super. 2006). Commonwealth v. If the record supports a PCRA court’s credibility determination, it is binding on the appellate court. Commonwealth v. Dennis, 609 Pa. 442, 17 A.3d 297 (2011). After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinions of the Honorable Bradford H. Charles, we conclude Appellant’s issues merit no relief. The PCRA court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions -2- J-S52033-17 presented. (See PCRA Court 1925(a) Opinion, filed February 17, 2017, at 610; Opinion In Support of Order Denying PCRA Petition, filed December 5, 2016, at 2-6) (finding: plea counsel met with Appellant on eight occasions; Appellant instructed counsel to proceed with plan designed to result in plea agreement; DA was unwilling to offer plea agreement of less than six to fifteen years’ imprisonment; counsel informed Appellant of potential for better plea deal if Appellant agreed to testify against her co-defendant, but Appellant refused; Appellant also declined to tell counsel where she had purchased heroin that caused victim’s death, information that plea counsel might have been able to use to negotiate better deal; Appellant’s guilty plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; Appellant failed to present evidence at PCRA hearing that interviews with Earl Miller or Andrew Houck would have assisted Appellant; Appellant repeatedly advised plea counsel that she purchased drugs which led to victim’s death and intended to plead guilty and not proceed to trial, so counsel was not ineffective for failing to interview Mr. Miller or Mr. Houck; Appellant voluntarily accepted plea deal and signed written guilty plea colloquy; plea counsel hand-delivered entire discovery packet to Appellant in prison and reviewed contents of discovery packet with Appellant; PCRA Court found plea counsel’s testimony Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the PCRA court’s opinions. Order affirmed. -3- credible). J-S52033-17 Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 9/8/2017 -4- Circulated 08/29/2017 02:23 PM Circulated 08/29/2017 02:23 PM

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.