Appeal from Post Conv Relief Act November 14, 1988, in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Criminal No. 2306, 2306(A-F) C.D. 1986.
Michelle A. Fox, Harrisburg, for appellant.
Richard A. Lewis, Dist. Atty., Harrisburg, for Com., appellee.
Olszewski, Beck and Hoffman, JJ. Beck, J., concurs in the result.
[ 387 Pa. Super. Page 239]
This is an appeal from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County dismissing appellant's Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) petition, filed on September 8, 1988.*fn1 Appellant alleges that the PCRA court erred in
[ 387 Pa. Super. Page 240]
dismissing his petition without a hearing because: (1) his guilty pleas were unlawfully induced by the promise of a lighter sentence; (2) trial counsel was ineffective for advising him to plead guilty; and (3) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to withdraw the pleas or an appeal regarding the voluntariness of same. For the following reasons, we affirm.
On January 26, 1987, appellant pleaded guilty to seven counts of unlawful delivery of a controlled substance, stemming from seven separate sales of cocaine to undercover police officers. On March 23, 1987, after reviewing appellant's presentence report, the trial court imposed a sentence totaling twelve to twenty-four years imprisonment. A motion for reduction of sentence was filed and denied. On appeal to this Court, we affirmed.
Thereafter, on September 8, 1988, appellant filed a pro se petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act. New counsel was appointed, and on October 8, 1988, filed an amended petition. The PCRA court, on November 14, 1988, denied appellant's petition without a hearing. Appellant then filed the instant appeal.
Appellant contends that his guilty plea was unlawfully induced, that prior counsel was ineffective in advising him to plead guilty, and that counsel was ineffective in failing to withdraw his guilty plea. He claims that prior counsel represented to him that he would receive a sentence of five to ten years rather than the twelve to twenty-four year sentence actually imposed. Pointing to case law handed down under the former PCHA, appellant claims that, at a minimum, he should have been granted a hearing to demonstrate his claims. We disagree.
Before we can address appellant's issues, we must first determine whether they are properly before this Court. In order to challenge the validity of a guilty plea, a motion to withdraw the plea must be filed within ten days after ...