May 29, 2013
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee
KHILLE BAYLIS, Appellant
Appeal from the PCRA Order of September 28, 2012, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Criminal Division at No. CP-36-CR-0001161-2008
BEFORE: SHOGAN, MUNDY and COLVILLE [*] , JJ.
This is an appeal from an order denying Appellant's petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"). We affirm.
Given the manner in which we dispose of this appeal, we only will briefly summarize the background underlying the matter. A jury convicted Appellant of, inter alia, attempted murder. The trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of imprisonment of fourteen to twenty-eight years. This Court affirmed the judgment of sentence. Commonwealth v. Baylis, 998 A.2d 1026 (Pa. Super. 2010) (unpublished memorandum). Appellant petitioned our Supreme Court for allowance of appeal. The Supreme Court denied the petition. Commonwealth v. Baylis, 9 A.3d 626 (Pa. 2010). Appellant, acting pro se, timely filed a PCRA petition. The PCRA court appointed counsel, and counsel filed an amended PCRA petition. After holding an evidentiary hearing, the PCRA court denied the petition. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.
In his brief to this Court, Appellant asks us to consider the following question.
A. WHETHER COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE WHEN SHE FAILED TO LITIGATE DURING THE DIRECT APPEAL THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE VERDICT OF THE JURY FINDING THE DEFENDANT GUILTY OF ATTEMPTED MURDER WHEN THE COMMONWEALTH FAILED TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD THE SPECIFIC INTENT TO KILL?
B. WHETHER COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE WHEN SHE FAILED TO LITIGATE DURING THE DIRECT APPEAL THAT THE COMMONWEALTH DID NOT ESTABLISH REASONABLE SUSPICION FOR THE INVESTIGATORY STOP OF THE DEFENDANT WHEN THE POLICE OFFICERS AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING TESTIFIED IN A VERY CONCLUSORY MANNER AND MERELY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT "MATCHED" A DESCRIPTION AND GAVE NO SPECIFICITY CONCERNING HIS APPEARANCE AT THE TIME HE WAS STOPPED?
Appellant's Brief at 4.
Generally speaking, "[o]n appeal from the denial of PCRA relief, an appellate court's standard of review is whether the ruling of the PCRA court is free of legal error and supported by the record." Commonwealth v. Jones, 932 A.2d 179, 181 (Pa. Super. 2007).
In the PCRA court, Appellant argued that appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to litigate on direct appeal that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence at trial to support his attempted murder conviction and that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress wherein Appellant claimed, inter alia, that the police lacked the requisite suspicion to stop Appellant. The PCRA court addressed these arguments in its opinion in support of its order denying Appellant's PCRA petition. PCRA Court Opinion, 09/28/12.
On appeal, Appellant simply renews the arguments he presented to the PCRA court. He does not address the PCRA court's analysis of those arguments, let alone assign any error to the court's analysis. See Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 931 A.2d 717, 722 (Pa. Super. 2007) ("An appellant also has the burden to convince us that there were errors and that relief is due because of those errors."). Moreover, after a review of the parties' briefs and the certified record, we can discern no error in the court's opinion. We, therefore, rely on that opinion in affirming the order denying Appellant's PCRA petition.