J-S54010-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. RONNIE IRIZARRY Appellant No. 121 MDA 2014

Appeal from the PCRA Order January 10, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0000192-2008, CP-36-CR-0000195-2008, CP-36-CR-0002542-2008

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., MUNDY, J., and STABILE, J.

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J. FILED OCTOBER 08, 2014 Ronnie Irizarry appeals from the trial court’s order denying, after a hearing, his amended petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.1 In November 2009, Irizarry entered an open guilty plea to two counts each of robbery2 and intimidation of witnesses.3 The charges stemmed from his involvement in a knife-point ____________________________________________

The standard of review of an order denying a PCRA petition is whether that determination is supported by the evidence of record and is free of legal error. The PCRA court’s findings will not be disturbed unless there is no support for the findings in the certified record. Commonwealth v. Johnston, 42 A.3d 1120, 1126 (Pa. Super. 2012).

18 Pa.C.S. § 3701.

18 Pa.C.S. § 4952.

J-S54010-14

robbery of two clerks at a convenience store. He was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 8½-20 years’ incarceration.4 On appeal, Irizarry contends that counsel was ineffective for inducing him to plead guilty by erroneously advising him that he would receive concurrent sentences and for telling him that if he did not plead guilty his sister would be charged as an accomplice to the robbery. After careful review, we affirm.

To prevail on an ineffectiveness claim, appellant must show that his underlying contention possesses arguable merit, that the course chosen by counsel had no reasonable basis designed to serve appellant's interests, and that counsel's conduct prejudiced appellant. Commonwealth v. Mendoza, 730 A.2d 503 (Pa. Super. 1999). Claims of ineffectiveness in connection with a guilty plea will provide a basis for relief only if ineffectiveness caused an involuntary or unknowing plea. Commonwealth v. Yager, 685 A.2d 1000, 1004 (Pa. Super. 1996) (en banc). The law does not require that appellant be pleased with the outcome of his decision to enter a plea of guilty; all that is required is that appellant's decision to plead guilty be knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made. Id. at 1003.

In his amended petition, Irizarry claims that not only did counsel advise him that he would receive concurrent sentences, but that he would ____________________________________________

The court’s sentence consisted of concurrent terms of 4½-10 years’ imprisonment for each robbery conviction and concurrent terms of 4-10 years in prison for each intimidation conviction. The intimidation sentences were ordered to run consecutive to the robbery sentences.

-2- J-S54010-14

receive an aggregate sentence of not greater than 5-10 years. Moreover, Irizarry asserts that counsel told him if he did not plead guilty that his sister would be charged as an accomplice and could lose custody of her children.

Instantly, Irizarry was aware, prior to pleading guilty, that his sentences would not necessarily run concurrently; therefore, we cannot conclude that counsel caused Irizarry to enter an involuntary and unknowing plea. Yager, supra. Irizarry admitted that counsel was going to “ask for” concurrent sentences, N.T. PCRA Hearing, 11/25/2013, and that if he didn’t receive concurrent sentences he wanted to appeal. Id. at 21. Moreover, Irizarry testified that counsel did not promise him a 5-10 year sentence. Id. at 20. Finally, Irizarry testified that counsel told him that if he didn’t plead guilty his sister would also be charged, but he did not say what the charge would be. Id. at 18. However, counsel did not recall ever having such a conversation, id. at 8, 11, and that, at most, he told Irizarry that he was informed by the police that they were looking at bringing charges against his sister. Id. at 11. Finally, in both his signed, written colloquy and at his oral colloquy, Irizarry represented that no one had either made him any promises or representations to him in return for his guilty plea or threatened or forced him to plead guilty. N.T. Guilty Plea, 11/13/09, at 8; Written Guilty Plea Colloquy and Post-Sentence Rights, 11/13/09, at ¶¶50-52. Therefore, the record belies Irizarry’s final claim.

After reviewing the parties’ briefs, the certified record and relevant case law, we affirm the trial court’s order denying Irizarry’s amended PCRA -3- J-S54010-14

petition on the basis of the trial court opinion authored by the Honorable Dennis E. Reinaker. We instruct the parties to attach a copy of Judge Reinaker’s decision in the event of further proceedings in the matter.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 10/8/2014

-4- Circulated 09/10/2014 03:27 PM Circulated 09/10/2014 03:27 PM