Com. v. Steinburger, T. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S32016-22 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. TROY J. STEINBURGER Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 45 MDA 2022 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered December 10, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-22-CR-0004040-2002 BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and LAZARUS, J. MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED: NOVEMBER 1, 2022 Appellant, Troy J. Steinburger, appeals from the post-conviction court’s December 10, 2021 order dismissing his seventh petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.1 We affirm. We need not set forth the relevant background of this matter here, as the PCRA court provided an adequate summary in its November 16, 2021 opinion, in which it gave Appellant notice of its intent to dismiss his petition without a hearing pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 907. ____________________________________________ In Appellant’s notice of appeal, he purports to appeal from the trial court’s “order of sentence.” See Notice of Appeal, 12/20/21, at 1 (unnumbered pages). However, Appellant attached the PCRA court’s December 10, 2021 order to his notice of appeal, and the docketing statement he filed with this Court clearly indicates that Appellant is appealing from the denial of PCRA relief. Consequently, we conclude that the reference to Appellant’s sentence is a typographical error. 1 J-S32016-22 See PCRA Court Opinion (“PCO”), 11/16/21, at 1-3.2, 3 Presently, Appellant raises a single issue for our review: Did the PCRA court err by dismissing [Appellant’s] PCRA Petition without an evidentiary hearing where he adequately pleaded that he is entitled to relief based on newly and after discovered evidence? Appellant’s Brief at 4. We have reviewed the thorough and well-reasoned opinion issued by the Honorable John F. Cherry, President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County. We conclude that the reasoning set forth in Judge Cherry’s opinion accurately and thoroughly disposes of the issue raised by Appellant. See PCO at 3-7.4 Accordingly, we adopt his opinion as our own with respect to the issue Appellant raises on appeal.5 ____________________________________________ We only add to the PCRA court’s summary that Appellant filed a timely response to the PCRA’s court Rule 907 notice on December 6, 2021. The trial court entered its final order dismissing Appellant’s petition on December 10, 2021, and Appellant subsequently filed a timely notice of appeal. The PCRA court did not direct Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and Appellant did not do so. 2 The PCRA court relied on its November 16, 2021 opinion in its January 14, 2022 Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion. 3 We do note a typographical error in the PCRA court’s decision. It says Carolina Villanueva’s statement was dated March 19, 2019, when it was actually dated March 19, 2020. See PCO at 5; Appellant’s Seventh PCRA Petition, 2/12/21, at ¶ 9. 4 The court addresses another issue in its opinion that Appellant has not raised on appeal. See PCO at 7 (addressing Appellant’s claim of trial counsel’s ineffectiveness with respect to an alleged violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)). We do not adopt the court’s analysis of this claim, as Appellant has abandoned this issue on appeal. 5 -2- J-S32016-22 Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 11/01/2022 -3- Circulated 10/04/2022 10:54 AM
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.
