J-S52033-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
SHANNON MILLER :
:
Appellant : 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 CO-
DEFENDANT, 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. Commonwealth v.
Rathfon, 899 A.2d 365 (Pa.Super. 2006). 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 6-
10; 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 credible).
Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the PCRA court’s opinions.
Order affirmed.
-3-
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
Com. v. Miller, S.
Combined Opinion