Appeal from the PCRA Order May 22, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-CR-0002467-2008.
BEFORE: MUNDY, J., OLSON, J., and STABILE, J.
Appellant, Kenneth Winston Ashford, appeals pro se from the May 22, 2013 order dismissing his first petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. After careful review, we affirm.
We summarize the relevant facts and procedural history of this case as follows. On May 12, 2009, a jury found Appellant guilty of one count each of attempted burglary, criminal trespass, attempted criminal trespass, possession of an instrument of a crime (PIC), institutional vandalism, and criminal mischief. On July 6, 2009, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of five and one-half to 11 years' imprisonment. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. On June 23, 2010, this Court entered an order sua sponte dismissing the appeal due to Appellant's failure to file a brief. On June 30, 2010, Appellant filed an application to reinstate the appeal, which was denied by this Court on July 19, 2010. On August 19, 2010, Appellant filed a second application to reinstate the appeal which was denied on September 2, 2010. Our Supreme Court denied Appellant's petition to file a petition for allowance of appeal nunc pro tunc on February 10, 2011. Supreme Court Order, 2/10/11, 192 MM 2010, at 1.
On January 6, 2012, Appellant filed a pro se motion for credit for time served. The trial court entered an order denying this motion on February 15, 2012. Appellant filed a notice of appeal, and this Court affirmed on March 19, 2013. Commonwealth v. Ashford, 69 A.3d 1296 (Pa.Super. 2013) (unpublished memorandum). However, Appellant also filed a "Request to Correct Illegal Sentence" on March 5, 2012, which the trial court had held in abeyance. In its March 19, 2013 memorandum decision, this Court deemed that said motion was a PCRA petition and instructed the Court of Common Pleas to treat it as such and appoint counsel pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 904. Id. at 9 n.6.
On March 22, 2013, the PCRA court entered an order appointing Christopher J. Moore, Esquire (Attorney Moore) to serve as PCRA counsel. The PCRA court's order also directed that Attorney Moore's amended petition should address the timeliness of the original pro se petition. Despite being represented by counsel, Appellant filed a pro se amended PCRA petition on April 23, 2013. On April 29, 2013, Attorney Moore filed a motion for an extension of time to file a counseled amended PCRA petition, which the PCRA court granted on May 15, 2013, giving Attorney Moore until May 20, 2013 to file said petition. However, no such amended petition was filed. On May 22, 2013, the PCRA court conducted a hearing limited to the timeliness of the original PCRA petition, at the conclusion of which the PCRA court entered an order dismissing the PCRA petition as untimely. On May 30, 2013, Attorney Moore filed a motion to withdraw as counsel, which the PCRA court granted on June 3, 2013. On June 7, 2013, Appellant filed a timely pro se notice of appeal.
On appeal, Appellant raises the following ten issues for our review.
A. Whether [the PCRA] court was defiant for denying Appellant's PCRA petition as untimely, after the Superior Court had issued an order to treat petition as held in abeyance, which invokes an illegal sentence to be Appellant's first PCRA petition and appoint counsel[?]
B. Whether [the PCRA] court order appointing counsel to amend [Appellant's pro se] PCRA petition [has] been enforced with new counsel appointed[?]
C. Whether [the Superior Court] should now hear and rule on the claims and or issues they order[ed] the [PCRA] court to comply with, and hear and rule on other issues and claims presented[?]
D. Whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support Appellant's conviction for attempted burglary and related charges and whether the verdict ...