Appeal from the PCRA Order of May 1, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0810631-2005, CP-51-CR-0810641-2005 and CP-51-CR-0906011-2005
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., OLSON AND PLATT, [*] JJ.
Appellant, Kevin Patterson, appeals from the order entered on May 1, 2013, dismissing his first petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
The facts and procedural history of this, as aptly set forth by the PCRA court, are as follows:
[Appellant] and his cohorts robbed a Friendly's restaurant in Northeast Philadelphia wearing masks and carrying a shotgun, a handgun and a revolver. They ordered employees and customers to the floor and took money and other items from the restaurant, employees and patrons. Police arrested [Appellant and his co-defendants] as they were fleeing from the crime scene.
On January 11, 2010, [Appellant] entered into a negotiated guilty plea and was sentenced on each of [four] counts of  robbery [(each graded as a first-degree felony)] to [four] to 10 years['] incarceration (all sentences to be served concurrently); he was also sentenced to 10 years['] probation on each of [four] counts of criminal conspiracy to commit robbery (all to be served concurrent to each probation and to his incarceration sentences for robbery), and he was sentenced[d] to 84 months [of] concurrent probation for carrying a loaded firearm without a license.
Postmarked January 3, 2011, [Appellant] filed a [p]etition pursuant to the [PCRA]. On September 14, 2012, PCRA counsel, David Rudenstein, Esquire, filed an "Amended [PCRA] Petition." On January 14, 2013, the Commonwealth filed [a] [m]otion [t]o [d]ismiss. On April 2, 2013, [the PCRA] court sent [Appellant] notice pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907, informing him that the issue raised in his PCRA [p]etition was without merit. On May 1, 2013, [the PCRA] court formally dismissed [Appellant's] PCRA [p]etition [without an evidentiary hearing].
PCRA Court Opinion, 6/13/2013, at 1-2 (headings and offense citations omitted). This timely appeal resulted.
On appeal, Appellant presents a single issue for our review:
I. Did the Honorable PCRA [c]ourt err when it dismissed [Appellant's] [a]mended PCRA [p]etition without a hearing,  where [Appellant] properly pled and would have been able to prove he was entitled to PCRA relief?
Appellant's Brief, at 3.
Appellant argues that trial counsel was ineffective and induced unknowing guilty pleas when his lawyer told him that he would be "paroled immediately" if he accepted the plea bargain, and where Appellant was, in fact not "paroled immediately." Id. at 4. In a single statement in his appellate brief, Appellant avers that he is actually innocent.Id. Thus, Appellant contends "an evidentiary hearing was absolutely necessary" to determine "whether an actual promise was made ...