J-S83015-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : MARSEILLE WILSON : : Appellant : No. 1693 EDA 2017 Appeal from the PCRA Order May 9, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0013135-2011

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., OLSON, J., and DUBOW, J.

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED MARCH 02, 2018 Appellant Marseille Wilson appeals from the Order denying his Petition filed pursuant to the Post-Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa. C.S.

§§ 9541-9546. He challenges the effectiveness of counsel and the legality of his sentence. After careful review, we adopt as our own the Opinion of the PCRA court filed June 28, 2017, and affirm.

On March 1, 2013, a jury found Appellant guilty of rape, sexual assault and indecent assault in connection with his rape of an unconscious woman.

The court sentenced him on July 11, 2013, to 5 to 10 years’ incarceration on the rape conviction, followed by 10 years’ probation.1 This Court affirmed

____________________________________________

J-S83015-17

the Judgment of Sentence on September 15, 2015. Appellant filed no further appeals.

On October 17, 2016, Appellant timely filed2 the instant PCRA petition pro se, which he amended after the appointment of counsel, challenging the legality of his sentence based on Alleyne,3 and alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to raise the issue at trial or on appeal. See Amended PCRA Petition, dated 11/21/16. Following the filing of a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 Notice, the PCRA court dismissed the Petition as meritless on May 9, 2017.

On May 24, 2017, Appellant timely appealed. The court did not order Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement. The PCRA Court filed a Rule 1925(a) Opinion.

In a section of his Brief entitled “Summary of Questions Involved,” Appellant presents the following issue: Should PCRA relief be granted where he was subject to an illegal sentence and where counsel failed to raise the issue at trial or on direct appeal?

Appellant’s Brief, at 8. ____________________________________________

-2- J-S83015-17

We review the denial of a PCRA Petition to determine whether the record supports the PCRA court’s findings and whether its Order is otherwise free of legal error. Commonwealth v. Fears, 86 A.3d 795, 803 (Pa. 2014). There is no right to a PCRA hearing; a hearing is unnecessary where the PCRA court can determine from the record that there are no genuine issues of material fact. Commonwealth v. Jones, 942 A.2d 903, 906 (Pa. Super. 2008).

Without indicating the statute under which he was sentenced that he is challenging, and with absolutely no citation to the sentencing record, Appellant avers that he “was subject to an illegal mandatory minimum sentence … [and[] counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the issue … at trial or on direct appeal.” Appellant’s Brief at 10. Appellant supports this argument summary with a lengthy discussion of Alleyne and subsequent Pennsylvania case law, followed by a general discussion of the right to counsel and Strickland v. Washington4 and Commonwealth v. Pierce.5 While Appellant’s failure to provide relevant facts in his Brief would generally render this Appeal waived, the Hon. Genece Brinkley of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, who presided over both Appellant’s jury trial, sentencing and PCRA proceeding, has authored a well-written, thorough ____________________________________________

-3- J-S83015-17

Opinion with citation to relevant case law and the record, which we adopt as our own. See PCRA Ct. Op., dated June 28, 2017 (finding: (1) Appellant did not cite which mandatory minimum sentencing statute he believes was applied illegally; (2) nothing in the record indicates that the Court applied a mandatory minimum sentence; (3) the word “mandatory” was never used during the sentencing hearing by the court or either party; (4) quoting the court’s statement made during the sentencing hearing that “This, in essence, is a guideline sentence. It’s in the middle of the guidelines. It’s not above the guidelines;” and (5) because the underlying claim has no merit, Appellant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails.).

Our review indicates that the record supports the PCRA court’s findings and its conclusion contains no legal error. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of PCRA relief. The parties are directed to annex a copy of the PCRA Court’s June 28, 2017 Opinion to any future filings.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/2/18

-4- Circulated 01/29/2018 04:18 PM