These appellate proceedings are truly the crown jewel of this entire disgusting mockery of justice and judicial procedure. The Superior Court has not only condoned the lower court's failure to provide a hearing on these clearly meritorious issues, as required under the Pa. Rules of Criminal Procedure, they have joined that court in the absolutely ludicrous assertion that these issues are frivolous.

The very minimal question before the Superior Court was whether the lower court erred (abused it's discretion) in failing to grant a hearing on the within issues.

The applicable law here is § 9549 of the Post-Conviction Hearing Act, under which "the Court is required to grant a hearing if a petition alleges facts that, if proven, would entitle the Petitioner to relief.

The bare record alone sufficiently supports my assertions as to justify, indeed, require, the granting of the requested relief, let alone a hearing.

The very least (within the realm of credibility) that the Superior Court could have done is to remand this case for a full hearing.

It must be seen that under the apparent logic of the court's decision, a defendant could be charged with MURDER, enter a guilty plea to lesser charges (2nd Degree?) as a result of the prosecution's, and his own attorney's failure to disclose the fact that the "victim" was, in fact, NOT DEAD - and that would be perfectly all right! Think about that.

In fact, according to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, it is entirely appropriate to dismiss such a claim WITHOUT A HEARING!!

That is exactly what has happened here. The only distinction is that instead of murder, I was charged that I "Did intentionally, knowingly or recklessly cause serious bodily injury.."

I would also point out, as you will see, that I was totally deprived of the constitutionally guaranteed right to the assistance of effective counsel throughout these ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS. In fact, except for coercing me to enter a guilty plea, I was totally deprived of the assistance of counsel, period.

I was charged, in both the Criminal Complaint, and the District Attorney's Information that I "Did knowingly, intentionally or recklessly cause serious bodily injury to Joseph Zdarko".

Not only was this charge false, but the fact that it was false was withheld from me by both the prosecution - and my own "defense" "attorneys".

In legal terms it is called the withholding of exculpatory evidence - and it (alone) is sufficient to overturn a conviction, whether that conviction is the result of a verdict, or a guilty plea.

Case law has defined "exculpatory evidence" as:
"that which is favorable to a defendant with respect to the question of guilt or innocence, or which tends to mitigate the nature of the offense for which the defendant is charged". It is quite broad.

In plain words, the fact that this very serious charge (carrying a mandatory 5 to 10 year sentence) was false, was withheld from me, and it was instead used to coerce a guilty plea to the other charges. This false charge should have never been filed, should have been dismissed at the preliminary hearing, and, failing that, been dropped by the District Attorney, and, failing THAT, quashed by counsel. The fact that this charge was false was only disclosed to me (after being incarcerated over a year and a half) by Garwood S. Boyer, one of the individuals who had been involved in the altercation. Quite clearly, this statement (at the very least) constitutes a "trace of support" for my claims that these charges were false.

And just as clearly, the actual injuries of Mr. Zdarko would have been very easily discovered at an evidentiary hearing.

Obviously, such a hearing would have posed some very difficult question for District Attorney Hernan and "attorney" Massa,  including an inquiry of the true nature of the alleged injuries. And, of course, requiring that this withholding be explained in some way or other.

Of course, if you've read the Buckley/Brown affair, you'll know that this (witholding, and/or fabricating evidence) is one of their (Hernan, Massa, and Aranyos') favorite tricks.

Here are my arguments as set forth in my Supplemental Brief concerning FALSE ARREST and the District Attorney's FAILURE TO DISCLOSE exculpatory evidence. Also, my argument that I was misled by counsel. These most significant matters, raised in my PCHA Petition, and on appeal, have simply been totally ignored by both the lower and Superior Courts.

Likewise, both Courts have totally ignored the numerous, serious, and very clear violations of the Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 319, which requires that guilty plea be knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered.

Further, both courts have totally ignored trial counsel's GROSS INEFFECTIVENESS regarding these very significant issues.

Likewise, they have totally ignored/condoned appellate counsel's TOTAL DERELICTION OF HIS DUTY in these matters.

The record shows that "attorney" McKeirnan was originally appointed by the court on September 14, 1988, to represent me on my P.C.H.A. Petition. The record also indicates his subsequent (redundant, inexplicable, and absurd) re-appointment by the court on June 1, 1989 (despite his PREVIOUS ABYSMAL FAILURES). Despite these appointments, the fact is that never once did "attorney" McKeirnan EVER DO ONE SINGLE THING IN ANY OF THESE PROCEEDINGS - OR EVER EVEN CONTACT ME IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM WHATSOEVER.

As a result of McKeirnan's continued non-performance, I was forced to file this appeal myself, including my Supplemental, and Reply brief's, both in an attempt to obtain a resolution of the illegal sentence, and in order to avoid the dismissal of this appeal entirely.

In response to my complaints of McKeirnan's total lack of participation, the Superior Court Ordered him to file an ANSWER to my assertions. Not only did McKeirnan simply IGNORE this ORDER, the Superior Court actually tried to cover for him, and denied my motion, DESPITE HIS FAILURE TO EVEN FILE AN ANSWER AS ORDERED - and relieving him of his obligations - AND DENYING ME THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL!!

It is no small matter that, in accordance with the terms of this sentence, the MAXIMUM sentence, even if it had been a legal sentence, expired on January 15, 1990. AND that my minimum sentence had expired July 15 1988, and I was denied the right to apply for parole for a year and a half.

The issue of illegal sentence is also a matter of primary significance, in several respects, including the validity of my guilty plea.

It is actually a rather simple matter, complicated, in fact perpetrated, only by the absurd errors, omissions, misinterpretations, fabrications, and duplicitious machinations of the lower court, the District Attorney's Office, the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, and the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

And greatly facilitated by the abject failures and absolute abandonment by "defense attorneys" Massa, Aranyos, and McKeirnan.

Various documents relating to sentencing are available for downloading (in standard word processing format). It is strongly suggested that (at a minimum) the SENTENCE, AMENDED SENTENCE, and the District Attorney's "MEMORANDUM" be dowloaded and printed out for your reference while perusing this case.

The initial source of the confusion surrounding this sentence is the District Attorney's "erroneous" interpretation of 204 Pa. Code §303.1 (i)

It is further perpetrated by the Court's blatant violation of several major rules of Chapter 97 of Title 42 Pa C.S. (SENTENCING PROCEDURES); and the District Attorney's and, most particularly, defense counsel Joseph A. Massa's, acquiescence in those violations. As well as the District Attorney, the Court, and "defense counsel" totally ignoring the clear mandates of the District Attorney's own citations!

The fact should also be noted that the court was in violation of Title 42 Pa. C.S. § § 9757 in failing to state the "minimum sentence to be served for the TOTAL of all offenses with respect to which sentence is imposed." Adherence to this rule would have (at least) eliminated all of the subsequent "confusion" concerning this sentence.

I do not believe there is any serious question as to whether these were indeed "errors", as it is very difficult to believe that an entire judicial and penal system could be so ignorant in such a basic matter: SENTENCING - 42 Pa. C.S. § 9700, et.seq.

The first of these "errors" was the District Attorney's absolutely ludicrous "misinterpretation" of his own citations, namely Section 204 Pa Code § 303.1(i) of the Sentencing Guidelines, which concerns the treatment of the MINIMUM aspects of a sentence that exceeds the statutory limits because of the application of the guidelines. Quite incredibly, "defense attorneys" Joseph A. Massa, Jr., and John A. Aranyos, and even more incredibly, the court, fully accepted this ridiculous interpretation, totally ignoring the clear mandate of 303.1(i).

The essence of what was done here is that the District Attorney, "defense" counsel, and the court, while recognizing the effect of 303.1(i) upon the maximum sentence, totally ignored the intended effect of this statute upon the minimum sentence. That effect is most simply, and clearly stated in 42 PA C.S.A § 9756

Obviously, the court's failure to specifically state the minimum sentences (as required by law) necessitates an examination of the cited authorities "pursuant to" which such sentences were imposed, namely, 204 Pa. Code § 303.1 (i); and COM. v McKeithan.

Both of these authorities rely (exclusively) upon 42 Pa. §9755 and §9756, and most definitely and clearly indicate that the sentence on the charge of reckless endangerment (including the deadly weapon enhancement) MUST be reduced to a 1 year minimum (which is one-half of 2) to 2 years (which is the maximum sentence for a misdemeanor-two).

The reality is that this sentence (2 years minimum - 2 years maximum) was specifically recommended by the District Attorney's Office, clearly imposed by the court in response to such recommendation, and was unopposed by "defense attorney's" Massa and Aranyos. It was also interpreted by both the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and the Parole Board (assisted by the District Attorney's Office) as 2 years minimum - 2 years maximum. (And an aggregate sentence of three to four years.)

Furthermore, the sentencing court, after stating (in response to my assertion of illegal sentence) that sentence was a total of 24 to 48 months, then refused to inform the Department of Corrections "of the proper and legal sentence" on that charge!

Further yet, a sentence of 2 years minimum - 2 years maximum on the charge of reckless endangerment (3-4 aggregated) was, in fact, the sentence that I served!!

The Superior Court's findings concerning the sentence imposed are simply, and absolutely, preposterous. The Court first states that appellant was initially sentenced to a term of four years to eight years imprisonment. This is a pure fabrication. The sentence originally imposed was a total of three to six years.

This (pure) fabrication is is the product of the Superior astonishingly blatant fabrication that such sentence was composed of consecutive terms of two years to four years for violation of the controlled substance statute.

The original sentence was a term of 12 months to 24 months on the charge of possession with intent to deliver.

The Superior Court further yet claims that the court then amended the sentence by elimination of the term imposed for the deadly weapon enhancement. This is another flat out lie.

The record clearly indicates that the sentencing court imposed the deadly weapon enhancement in BOTH the original and the amended sentence, and then reduced ONLY THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE.

Thus, it is my position that the actual (amended) sentence on the charge of reckless endangerment, including the deadly weapon enhancement, was a term of 1 to 2 years, composed of 6 - 12 months on the charge of reckless endangerment, and 6 - 12 months for the deadly weapon enhancement. The enhancement portion of that sentence is illegal. See Com. v Gregory.

As stated in my Reply Brief, it is clear that the very most that could legally be construed of this sentence is a total of 1 1/2 years minimum to 3 years maximum. (6 to 12 months on reckless endangerment; and 1 to 2 years on the charge of possession with intent to deliver).

The fact remains however, that the sentence that I SERVED - a sentence that the sentencing court, the District Attorney, the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, and my own attorneys fully intended that I serve - was ILLEGAL. The District Attorney even admitted the illegality of the sentence in his Appellee's Brief! See also his CONCLUSION.

It is also interesting that he had no response to any of my arguments, other than his pathetically bald, as well as utterly baseless, assertion that "all other issues have been waived since they were not properly preserved for appeal." It would appear that he knew beforehand that he needn't bother.

It is in fact one of the most telling indications of the true nature of these entire proceedings that nowhere has either the prosecution nor defense counsel ever been required to answer any of my accusations.

Nor has the court addressed the specific substantive facts of record concering my issues, other than by pious, self-serving, irrelevant and intentionally mis-informed and inaccurate rhetoric.

I do not see how any reasonable person could possibly construe the totality of these facts and circumstances as anything other than a Commonwealth-wide conspiracy to falsely convict and imprison me, without a semblance of due process.

Likewise, the outrageously blatant, and unlawful attempt by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania to shield the Commonwealth, as well as "attorneys" Massa, Aranyos and McKeirnan from the consequences of their actions, and to validate (and perpetuate) my illegal incarceration. And undoubtably, to just shut me up - as they gave me two more years than the court did! (Luckily, the DOC didn't even accept this bullshit - I was released after serving four years, as having served my MAXIMUM SENTENCE).

Their rulings constitute either an instance of gross ignorance, indeed, illiteracy, simply beyond comprehension, or of corruption. The mere thought, let alone any presumption, that three Superior Court judges could (honestly) arrive at such conclusions is simply beyond the realm of credibility.

Their actions indicate these judges believe they can alter reality by decree. Think about the implications of that for awhile. That is perhaps the ultimate unanswered question in these entire proceedings. So far, it appears that they can.

The actions of these various agencies and officials of the Commonwealth, as well as my own attorneys, have deprived me, as near as I can tell, of every single right and protection under the Constitutions of the United States, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to which I am entitled.

Have these rights and protections ceased to exist? Or do they apply to everyone except me? Are these Constitutions nothing more than worthless pieces of paper? How, where, and when does one obtain these "self evident and inalienable rights" guaranteed by these Constitutions? It is clear our elected representatives could care less about the total trashing of our constitutional rights, as well as the absolute corruption of our legal and judicial systems.