IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSULVANIA
EASTERN DISTRICT
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
RESPONDENT,
VS,
HENRY PRATT,
DEFENDANT.
__________________________________________
PETTION FOR ALLOWEANCE OF APPEAL
FROM THE JUDGEMENT OF THE SUPERIOR
COURT:
DATED SEPTEMBER 5, 2021
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Text of Order (Judgment) in Questions.
Question Presented for Review.
Statement of the Case.
Statement of Reasons Relied Upon for Allowance of Appeal.
Appellate of Procedure Section 9545(b)(1)(ii).
Trial Court Opinion.
Superior Court Opinion Dated 9/5/2021.
Trail Court Transcript.
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S 356 (2010).
Defendant evidence that HE, is stay serving sentence or on
Parole.
The Court, erroneously denied Defendant PCRA and indicate that,
Defendant Attorney was incompetent to not present the Court with
Defendant serving a sentence or PAROLE-Documentations.
The Court also stated that Pratt, Attorney did not file Two Separate Notice of
Appeal, on two docket sheets, the Court also concede on those issues.
The Court also refused to hear the Merit of the case, that the trial Court did
not advice Defendant at the time of the Alleged Guilty Plea of the
Immigration consequences.
See, Pa Superior Court-Coleman---To which the Judgement OF Sentences
is missing in this case.
2
The sentencing documents the Court, used to proof their sentences, are
sentencing sheets and are not legal binding, to prove convictions under
Pennsylvania Norms or the United States Constitution.
Pa-Rule 114 and 576.
The sentencing sheets in this case are not legal, under the LAW, to prove
convictions and missing a (TIME STAMP) and should not had been
accepted, by any Courts, within the United States.
3
TABLE OF CITATIONS
Section 9545(b)(1)(ii),
Padilla v. Kentucky , 559 U.S 356 (2010),
Commonwealth v. Smith, 17 A.3d 873 (Pa. 2011),
Commonwealth v. Ahlborn, 699 A.2d 718, 720 (Pa. 1997),
Commonwealth v. Martin , 832 a.2d 1141 (Pa. Super. 2003).
Commonwealth v. Coleman,
Pa. Rules-114-576,
JUDGEMENT OF SENTENCE IS MISSING,
SENTENCING SHEETS ARE ILEGAL AND MISSING TIME STAMP.
4
REFERANCE TO OFFICIAL AND UNOFFICIAL
REPORTS
Opinion of the superior Court is unreported.
Opinion of the Trial Court is unreported.
TEXT OF ORDER OF AN (UN-JUDGMENT) IN QUESTIONS
See Order and Opinion of the Superior Court attached. The date of the
Superior Court Order and Opinion is September 5, 2021
5
RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On November 20, 2015, Defendant entered on alleged plea.
(
).
On the same day Defendant was sentenced to two years of Probation,
followed with two years’ Probation for:
On June 11, 2018, Defendant filed his first PCRA which the Court denied
Defendant PCRA.
On July 10, 2020, Defendant filed a Counseled Amendment to a second
PCRA Petition.
On Appeal Defendant raised his claim that the PCRA Court erroneously
denied his Petition,
On Appeal Defendant Pratt, raised claims, that the Court, Judge-Mahon,
the District Attorney and Defendant Attorney did not advise Pratt of the
Immigration Consequence at the time of the alleged plea. See: Plea
Transcript-EXHIBIT-B.
Defendant also raised claims, from the time (HE) discovered the new
evidence: (that he was not told about immigration),
Pratt, filed his ("FRIST-PCRA under Section 9545(b)(1)(ii)"), within 60
days of "discovering the new evidence from or by his Immigration
Attorney, that indicated the Trial Court Should have advised ("HIM") of the
Immigration Consequence at the time of the alleged guilty plea.
6
The Superior Court denied Defendant First PCRA and falsely stated, that
Pratt did not file "Two Separate Notices Of Appeal", in their own words,
even though that was not accurate, because Pratt did file Two Separate
Notices, on two sheets, based on Walker.
Pratt raised claims, in his first PCRA to the Court that the sentencing
sheets the Court has used to prove Pratt alleged convictions are missing
Time Stamp and not LEGAL.
The Judgment Of Sentence in this alleged conviction are missing and to
proved a conviction under the United States Norms or the State Of
Pennsylvania, YOU MUST HAVE A JUDGMENT OF SENTENCE OR
SENTENCES ORDER.
7
AT THE OUTSET OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
NEW "SLOGAN" ON "WALKER", AND THE
COURT "VAGUE" RULING
The Superior Court ruling dated September 05, 2021, present two
matters:
The Superior Court, considered "whether the Defendant:
1)-Attorney complied with Walker", or
2)-If the Defendant PCRA is eligible.
The Superior Court arguments presented, ("AGAIN AND AGAIN"), the
same (CATCH 22 TACTIC), and the same SLOGAN, in this Appeal,
based on WALKER, as the Court did in Pratt first PCRA by denying Pratt
first PCRA:
"that Pratt did not filed Two Separate Notices, based on Walker".
In this present Appeal the (Superior Court), use the same prospective as
the Court did before, to:
(A)-" DENIED"),
(B)-"AGREED WITH PRATT ATTORNEY") OR
(C)-"DODGE"), THE ("MERITS OF PRATT PCRA APPEAL").
THE SUPERIOR COURT, use the same "deception prospective", again
based on (Two Separate Notice, so the Court, could DENIED or AGREED,
with Defendant Attorney, by not addressing the Merit hat:
8
"Pratt was never*not told of Immigration at the time of the alleged plea".
Even though there was two Separate Notice Of Appeal, filed by
Defendant and HIS Attorney, in Pratt, first Pro Se, PCRA APPEAL to the
Superior Court and Pratt second Attorney PCRA Petition to the Court.
The Superior Court Of Pennsylvania, games and slogan, has to STOP,
because, it is so retarded, for the State biggest Court, to played games with
the law.
"WE", are not stupid we see your games.
In this present Appeal, dated September 05 20021, The Superior Court Of
Pennsylvania, came up again with the same (Catch 22 tactics) that:
the Defendant Attorney did not file two Separate Notices Of Appeal again.
The Superior Court Of Pennsylvania, tried to make Defendant AttorneySachs ("incompetent"), that the Attorney, did not file a Two Separate
Notices Of Appeal based of Walker.
The Superior Court Of Pennsylvania, also knew based on:
(THE CASE OF WALKER), that the ("Superior Court Of
Pennsylvania"), was not going to {WIN], in denying, Defendant Attorney
filed PCRA, based on (Walker),
So, Judge Mohan, Superior Court, cabal friends, agreed and conceded
with Defendant Pratt Attorney Sachs, Based on Commonwealth v. Johnson.
A rhetorical question, did Attorney Sack, went to the same LAW
SCHOOL like these Superior Judges? oh, I will think so.
Now I see why the Superior Court Judges, conceded with Attorney
9
SACHS, on walker, but:
when it came to Pratt, in HIS first PCRA APPEAL, based on the same
case-claims of (Walker), presented in Pratt first PCRA-Petition.
The Superior Court and this Court, follow suit and refused to hear the
CASE or MERITS, and said Pratt, is No-Body;
by denying Pratt on the same Case of (WALKER), that the Court-Judges,
agreed with Pratt Attorney Sachs, in this present Appeal.
These are the LAWS, we have in the United States, thank God we are not
dump because we are not Judges or Attorneys.
I am shaking My Head and the Superior Court has been expsed.
10
TAKE A LOOK AT THE Superior Court
Decisions IN Pratt, FRIST AND SECOND PCRA
The Superior Court Judges:
1)-JUDGE-BOWES, J,,
2)-STABILE, AND
3)-MUSMANNO, J:
did not address the Merits of the Case showing.
favor to the Trial Judge Mahon, to which the Superior Court, knows and has
always been aware that the Trial Judge Mahon was incompetent by
not advising the Defendant of Immigration Consequence.
The Superior Court, are stay stubborn and has refused to hold the Officers
of the Court, and the incompetent Judge Mahon reliable.
See Court Plea Transcript, don’t not take my words. JUDGE MAHON IS
INCOMPETANT.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, overturn Bill Cosby Convictions on
Technically, made by the Trial Court errors, even though Cosby did abuse
and rapes ALL These Women, based on Court records, Coby testified to
these very bad acts:
than the same technicality should be applied in Pratt Case, because Judge
Mohan, under the law of Pennsylvania and the law of the United States, did
not advise Pratt of Immigration at the time of the alleged plea,
11
It was A MUST that the Trial Judge Mahon, the D-A and Pratt Attorney,
advised Pratt (immigrant), of the Immigration Consequence upon a Plea.
Stated are the MERITS IN THIS CASE and what this case are about:
addressing the issues "that Pratt was not advised of immigration.
From the time Pratt received or got to know of this fact, HE filed his
first PCRA within (60) days. Pratt was not advised of immigration at the
time of plea.
IF Pratt, was not an immigrant, was very rich, have big friends with
POLITICAL POWERS IN HIGH OFFICES, LIKE COSBY, Then Pratt,
CASE AND MERITS WILL BE LISTENS TO.
SO draconian IN OUR GREAT AMERICA.
12
Stated Errors And What The Superior Cout-Cester
County Court Are Saying:
1)-Padilla v. Kentucky, was ruled very long ago,
2)-Pratt should have known about Padilla? and
3)-Likewise Bill Cosby.
Bill Cosby Case was also ruled on a decade, or over a decade ago:
Based on the technicality made by the Trail Court, In Cosby case,
this same Court, overturn Cosby Convictions.
What is going on with the Rules of Law? so absurd.
Playing games because the Court knows the Pratt case is compelling
and has Merits.
The Courts and this Court, has always knew that, the MERIT of Pratt
APPEAL is very strong:
because an incompetent Judge - (Judge MAHON), in the UNITED
STATES FILLS TO SERVE JUSTICE, by not advising Pratt of
Immigration.
13
THE SUPERIOR COURT DECISION BASED
ON DEFENDANT SERVING A SENTENCED
The Court consider whether Defendant is eligible for relief under the
PCRA Court:
The Superior Court agreed that the Defendant is serving an sentence or
on Parole from the District Court Of Pennsylvania. See, Court Documents
Serving a Sentenced or on Parole, by the United States District Court Of
Pennsylvania. EXHIBIT-A.
"OUR" Supreme Court Of Pennsylvania, Went On To
Say In Section 9543(a) To Require That A PCRA
Petitioner Should Be Serving A Sentence While Relief
Is Being Sought.
Commonwealth v. Smith, 17 A.3d 873 (Pa. 2011)
Commonwealth v. Ahlborn, 699 A.2d 718, 720 (Pa. 1997)
Commonwealth v. Martin , 832 a.2d 1141 (Pa. Super. 2003).
"IF" these rules-cases, cited above are true, which infect are accurate,
than the Superior Court Of Pennsylvania, erroneously denied or refused,
address Pratt PCRA-Petition because:
14
Defendant Pratt, is serving a sentence based on Honorable John,
Parole Order, in the Middle District Court of Pennsylvania. EXHIBIT-A.
The Superior Court erroneously stated, Defendant-Pratt, acknowledge that
he is not eligible for PCRA:
Lies, because Pratt, has not never ever said these lies.
Pratt has and always confirm, that HE, was not told of immigration, and
HE, became too knows of this fact when HE, was told by his immigration
Attorney, in detention.
Pratt has always maintained and confirm that with due diligent, when HE,
received the newly discovery evidence, at the first time, HE, filed HIS first
PCRA within 60 days.
The was NO WAY, Pratt could had received this evidence before HE,
filed HIS first PCRA Petition.
because this evidence was not known to Defendant-Pratt before filling
HIS first PCRA.
the Superior Court has always known that the Defendant has been in
Immigration detention and has been serving a sentence or parole.
Pratt, first PCRA-PETITION, was filed in immigration detention to the
Superior Court and Pratt has always been under a sentence, these are not
new facts for the Chester County Court or this Court.
15
`THE SUPERIOR COURT AND THE CHESTER
COUNTY, HAS ALWAYS REFUSED TO ADDRESS
THE MERIT OF PRATT PCRA PRTITION
The Superior Court Of Pennsylvania, The Chester County, has two
time refused to address the Merit of Pratt PCRA Petition in two PCRA
Petitions. The MERITS SHOULD HAD BEEN based on:
1)-Padilla v. Kentucky,
2)-Plea Transcript and
3)-Section 9545(b)(1)(ii).
WHY?
because the Superior Court, the Chester County Court and this Court,
knows if the issues are address:
A)-in or Under Padilla v. Kentucky,
B)-Section 9545(b)(1)(ii), and
3)-Plea Transcript-Incompetent Judge Mahon.
Pratt conviction with be overturn because the Trial Court Judge
(Mahon), from the Chester County Court and the Court Officers, did not
advised Defendant-Pratt, of the Immigration Consequence, at the time of
the Defendant alleged Plea.
When Pratt, got to nose or aware of these facts, Pratt, filed
HIS first PCRA with Due Diligent, within 60 days of the newly evidence.
16
The Superior Court, Chester County Court or this Courts, have
"Equitable Power" to serve Justice but again and again has refused to
address the Merit of Pratt case and have made the Merit conspicuous. This
is an malicious intent.
17
THE SUPERIOR COURT STATED OPINION
The Superior Court, went on to say that they will not address the Merit of
the claims.
The Merits of Pratt-PCRA-Petition, are compelling-imperative and the
Superior Court Of Pennsylvania should have addressed the Merits.
The Superior Court or the Chester County Court will and MUST hear the
MERITS of Pratt Petition, because Pratt PCRA PETITION, IS
MERITORIOUS. These are facts why the Court should hear
Pratt case:
1). The Courts knows Pratt is serving resentence,
2). The Trail Court, Judge Mahon, The District Attorney and Defendant
Attorney did not Advised HIM of Immigration Consequence,
3). From the first time Defendant received the newly discovery evidence,
not being advise of immigration, HE, filed HIS first PCRA within 60 days,
4). Pratt and his Attorney followed the rules in HIS first and second PCRA
and filed two Separate Notice Of Appeal and,
5). Padilla v. Kentucky , 559 U.S 356 (2010), Is sufficient to target a newly
discover evidence under Section 9545(b)(1)(ii).
The Superior Court should have based the decision on the Merit of the
Pratt Appeal and Stop Their Crescendo, not addressing the Merit of the
Case-Petition.
18
Pratt Attorney not presenting Sentence Documents raised very serious
concerns. It is clear that Pratt, is infarcts is on Parole.
The Court have to respect the rules of Law and the Norms of us
Constitution:
which is CLEAR in this present case, that an incompetent Judge Mahon,
whose love to YELL and SCREAMS, at Defendant in his Court Room were
and has always been incompetent by not handling the LAW, of "OUR"
State, and "OUR" Country, by not advising Pratt of immigration.
19
CONCLUSION
It is a disgrace for our State Of Pennsylvania, The Court of Law, The
Constitution and the Norms of the United States, for the Superior Court and
the Trail Court to ignore the compelling-imperative Facts in this Appeal and
refused to address the Merit of Pratt Petition.
Using Contradiction and wasting Taxpayer Money with Catch 22
Tactics.
Hear me loud and clear, that I Henry Pratt was never told of immigration
and if i knew of immigration, I would not had never taking the alleged plea.
Pratt, is in fact eligible for PCRA and was not ineligible for PCRA based
on the Exception Clause. The newly evidence was filed in Pratt first
PCRA within 60-day.
The Superior Court and Judge Mahon, have made these Facts and the
Merit of this PETITION, distain towards Mr. Pratt, by refusing to address
the Merit that:
that Pratt, was never advised of the Immigration Consequence at the time
of the alleged guilty plea.
The Superior Court decision by not addressing the MERITS above, are
Nonsensical and games.
The Rules Of Law is in fact strongly and confirm that the Superior Court
Judges or Judge Mahon are not above the law.
20
The Superior Court or the Trail Court will not Bamboozle Me (Pratt),
by keeping silent, my voice Must be heard, under OUR Constitutional,
and Norms of Pennsylvania.
I, Henry Pratt should have been told about the Potential Immigration
Consequence upon the aged Plea Deal, as an immigrant within the U.S,
The decision of the Superior Court and the Trail Court are Erroneously
Gigantic, that even if Superior Court, was telling the truth it would be
Inconsiderable.
The superior Court decision by not to addressing the Pratt Merits of the
Appeal is Irrevocable.
I ask this Court to REMEND, this Case-Petition, back to the Tail Court
based on an Ambiguous and Equivocal decisions of the Superior Court, or
overturn Pratt t conviction based on:
1)-the Rules Of Law,
2)-The Constitution,
3)- the Norms Of Pennsylvania,
4)-under Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S 356 (2010),
5)-Section 9545(b)(1)(ii),
6)-Plea Transcript,
7)-Judgment Of Sentence Is Missing,
8)-The Sentencing Sheets are ILEGAL, And Missing TIME STAMP AND
9)-Pratt and his Attorney was intact with the Walker.
21
Henry Pratt
Signature
2135 south 61st STREET
PHIL, PA 19142
Date: 11/03/2021
22
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Henry Pratt, hereby Certifies that a true and correct copies of the
foregoing decision-Statement of Matters Complained on Appeal and are
served by Mail as follows.
1)-The District Attorney
2)-CNN
3)-ACLU
Henry Pratt
2135 SOUTH 61st
Phil, PA 19142
Date: 11/03/2021
23
A------------------EXHIBIT---------------PAROLE ORDER
24
B-------------------------------------------PLEA TRANCRIPT
25
C---------------------COURTS OPIONS AND HISTORIES
26