J-S51021-19 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : FODE M. DOUKOURE : : Appellant : No. 7 MDA 2019 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 30, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-21-CR-0003574-2016 BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., GANTMAN, P.J.E., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.: FILED NOVEMBER 07, 2019 Appellant, Fode M. Doukoure, appeals from the order entered in the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas, which denied his first petition brought pursuant to the Post-Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), at 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. 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 need to restate them. Procedurally, we add, when the court sentenced Appellant on March 19, 2018, it ordered him to register for 15 years as a Tier I offender under the Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”). After a hearing on June 25, 2018, the PCRA court denied Appellant’s PCRA petition on November 30, 2018. On December 27, 2018, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. The PCRA court ordered Appellant on January 4, 2019, to file a J-S51021-19 concise statement of errors complained of on appeal per Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b); Appellant timely complied on January 24, 2019. Appellant raises one issue for our review: DID THE PCRA COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING [APPELLANT]’S AMENDED PCRA PETITION WHERE PLEA COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO ADEQUATELY ADVISE [APPELLANT] THAT HE IS PRESUMED INNOCENT AND INSTEAD ADVISED HIM THAT HE WOULD BE CONVICTED AT A TRIAL BY AN ALL-WHITE JURY BECAUSE BOTH [APPELLANT] AND PLEA COUNSEL ARE BLACK, AND SAID INEFFECTIVENESS RENDERED [APPELLANT]’S PLEA INVALID AS IT WAS NOT ENTERED INTO KNOWINGLY, INTELLIGENTLY, AND VOLUNTARILY BUT RATHER UNDER THE BELIEF THAT SUCH PLEA WAS [APPELLANT]’S ONLY CHANCE TO AVOID BEING CONVICTED OF ALL CHARGES DUE TO HIS RACE? (Appellant’s Brief at 5). Our standard of review of the denial of a PCRA petition is limited to examining whether the evidence of record supports the court’s determination and whether its decision is free of legal error. Commonwealth v. Conway, 14 A.3d 101, 108 (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, 515 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal denied, 593 Pa. 754, 932 A.2d 74 (2007). We give no such deference, however, to the court’s legal conclusions. Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190, 1194 (Pa.Super. 2012). Traditionally, credibility issues are resolved by the trier of fact who had the opportunity to observe the witnesses’ demeanor. Commonwealth -2- J-S51021-19 v. Abu-Jamal, 553 Pa. 485, 527, 720 A.2d 79, 99 (1998), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 810, 120 S.Ct. 41, 145 L.Ed.2d 38 (1999). Where the record supports the PCRA ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals