Com. v. Torres, R. ( 2018 )

J-S07008-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
ROBERT R. TORRES,
Appellant No. 608 EDA 2017
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered January 23, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0013710-2010
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E. , PANELLA, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED MAY 17, 2018
Appellant, Robert R. Torres, appeals from the post-conviction court’s
January 23, 2017 order denying his first petition filed under the Post
Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. Appellant raises nine
claims of ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC). After careful review, we
affirm.
This Court previously adopted the following summary of the facts of
Appellant’s case:
On July 2, 2010, [Appellant] told Rene Ortiz Acevedo that
someone had stolen crack cocaine from him. He then requested use of
… Acevedo’s vehicle so that they could go “take care of some problems.”
Prior to this occasion, [Appellant] had loaned money to … Acevedo to
purchase this vehicle. Shortly after the request, … Acevedo picked up
[Appellant] in his burgundy Jeep Cherokee from outside [Appellant’s]
apartment. The two men drove to a Chinese store on the corner near
… Acevedo’s apartment where they picked up Edilberto Cruz Castro and
Darnell Watson. At that time [Appellant] was in the driver’s seat, while
J-S07008-18
… Castro sat in the front passenger seat. … Acevedo and … Watson sat
in the back passenger seats. About twenty minutes later, at
approximately 8:53 p.m., the four (4) men arrived at 4th and Ashdale
Streets, where they found Benjamin Tucker and his friend. The men
believed that … Tucker was the person who had stolen drugs from
[Appellant].
[Appellant] and … Watson remained seated while … Castro and …
Acevedo exited the vehicle and approached … Tucker and his friend. …
Acevedo tried to grab … Tucker in an effort to pull him into the vehicle,
but … Tucker pushed him away. During the struggle, … Tucker’s friend
managed to escape. … Castro then pulled out a gun and shot … Tucker
in the chest. After … Tucker fell to the ground, … Castro stood over the
victim and shot him two more times. … Castro and … Acevedo then
returned to the Jeep Cherokee, and the men drove away, turning left
onto 4th Street. When they reached an alley, all four men abandoned
the vehicle and ran away from the scene. On July 3, 2010, Detectives
Thorsten Lucke and Tracy Byard recovered video surveillance footage
from Elvis Grocery store located at 326 West Ashdale Street. The video
displayed a confrontation that involved people who were in a dark
colored SUV that arrived on location at 20:52:36 and left going
eastbound on Ashdale Street at 20:53:10.
Police Officer Michelle Long responded to the crime scene
immediately after the shooting and observed … Tucker lying on the
ground. The victim displayed an obvious wound, and he was able to
point to the side of his chest after being asked where he had been shot.
The victim also indicated to Officer Long that he could not identify his
assailant. Officer Long remained with the victim until rescue arrived.
At approximately 9:24 p.m., … Tucker was pronounced dead. Dr.
Gary Collins, Deputy Chief Medical Examiner, conducted an autopsy of
the victim and testified at trial as an expert in forensic pathology. Dr.
Collins concluded to a reasonable degree of scientific and medical
certainty that the cause of … Tucker’s death was multiple gunshot
wounds. … Tucker’s injuries included a perforating gunshot wound to
his chest. The bullet entered the right side of … Tucker’s chest and
exited the right side of his back. This bullet travelled through the chest,
through the right atrium, through the right lung, and through the soft
back muscle tissues before it exited … Tucker’s body. In addition, …
Tucker suffered a graze wound to his left shoulder, a superficial wound
to his left cheek with a bullet fragment inside, and an abrasion on the
right side of his flank. The graze wound and chest wound were inflicted
by two separate bullets. The bullet fragment found in … Tucker’s cheek
appeared to have ricocheted into his skin. The bullet that pierced
-2-
J-S07008-18
through … Tucker’s right atrium caused significant internal bleeding,
causing the victim to bleed to death. Dr. Collins also concluded to a
reasonable degree of scientific and medical certainty that the manner of
… Tucker’s death was homicide. Dr. Collins observed on … Tucker’s body
stippling marks, which indicate[d] that the gun was fired within one to
three feet from the victim.
On July 3, 2010, at approximately 12:05 a.m., Police Officer
William Trenwith responded to the crime scene and recovered two .40
caliber fired cartridge casings, one copper fragment and one lead
fragment directly across the street from the 400 block of West Ashdale
Street. In addition to retrieving ballistics evidence, Officer Trenwith also
found a hat and sneakers. While at the crime scene, Officer Trenwith,
then assigned to the Crime Scene Unit, took photographs, prepared a
scaled sketch of the crime scene, and submitted a report.
Officer Trenwith submitted the ballistics evidence to the Firearms
Identification Unit for examination. A latent fingerprint examination on
the ballistics evidence was attempted, but no fingerprints were found.
Police Officer Ernest Bottomer, an expert in firearms identification and
ballistic evidence, examined the ballistics evidence and prepared a
report. After examining the two .40 caliber fired cartridge casings,
Officer Bottomer determined that they were both fired from the same
firearm. He was unable to compare [the] same to a gun because one
had not been submitted for examination. Officer Bottomer examined a
lead bullet core and a bullet jacket and was unable to determine their
exact caliber. Officer Bottomer was also unable to compare the
uncoated lead fragment taken from the victim’s left cheek to any other
ballistics evidence because it was unsuitable for microscopic
examination. At trial, Officer Bottomer explained that a .40 caliber
semiautomatic travels about 900 to 950 feet per second when it leaves
the gun barrel.
Officer Daniel Gilmore also responded to the original crime scene.
While securing the scene, he was met by [two witnesses,] Dr. Juan
Ignacio Espinoza and Michael Roseboro. At the direction of his sergeant,
Officer Gilmore remained with Dr. Espinoza and Mr. Roseboro until the
detectives could interview them. While they waited for detectives, Mr.
Roseboro indicated that a vehicle was involved in the shooting. Dr.
Espinoza told Officer Gilmore that he had witnessed the shooting as he
was driving on 4th Street. He also saw the two perpetrators get back
into a vehicle and flee the scene. Dr. Espinoza followed the vehicle and
obtained the license plate. While chasing the vehicle, Dr. Espinoza
called 911. After reporting the vehicle’s license plate, Dr. Espinoza
returned to the crime scene and found the victim drowning in blood. Dr.
-3-
J-S07008-18
Espinoza remained on the scene and waited for police to arrive. Dr.
Espinoza informed Officer Gilmore that a burgundy Jeep Cherokee was
involved in the shooting and gave him the license plate number that he
had obtained.
Approximately five minutes after the shooting, Police Officer Brian
Hilbert found the Jeep Cherokee in an abandoned lot at the corner of
Front Street and Roosevelt Boulevard, approximately three blocks away
from Ashdale Street. The driver door of the Jeep Cherokee was open
and the motor was still running. Officer Gilmore drove Dr. Espinoza and
Mr. Roseboro to view the Jeep Cherokee for identification purposes.
About one hour after the shooting, Dr. Espinoza confirmed that the Jeep
Cherokee was the vehicle involved in the shooting. The vehicle matched
the description that he had provided to Officer Gilmore. After this
identification was made, police photographed the vehicle and towed it
to a garage.
When the Jeep Cherokee was processed, police found fingerprints
of Letitia Marquez. On August 5, 2010, Letitia Marquez was interviewed.
During this interview, she informed police that the Jeep belonged to her
mother’s boyfriend, Rene Ortiz Acevedo. After being shown a
photograph of … Acevedo, she identified him as “Rico” and signed and
dated the photograph. After interviewing Letitia Marquez, Detective
Byard requested that her mother, Glorimar Marquez, be interviewed.
On August 7, 2010, police interviewed Gloria Marquez. After being
shown a photograph of … Acevedo, she identified him as “Rico” and
signed and dated the photograph. During this interview, … Marquez was
also shown photographs of [Appellant] and … Castro. She identified
[Appellant] as “Memo” and … Castro as “Pella” and signed and dated
each photograph.
Shortly after … Marquez’s interview, … Acevedo surrendered
himself to police. Before surrendering to police, [Appellant] tried to
prevent him from doing so by offering to help … Acevedo obtain an
attorney if needed. On August 10, 2010, … Acevedo provided a
statement to police, which he signed and dated. During the interview,
… Acevedo was shown a photograph of [Appellant], whom he identified
as “Memo, Munchow.” … Acevedo signed and dated the photograph. …
Acevedo was also shown a photograph of … Castro, whom he identified
as “Pella.” He signed and dated the photograph. A follow up interview
of … Acevedo was conducted by Detective Phillip Nordo on August 11,
2010. In his second statement to police, … Acevedo identified … Watson
as the fourth person inside the car during the shooting. After being
shown a photograph of … Watson, … Acevedo signed and dated the
-4-
J-S07008-18
photograph. Based on … Acevedo’s interview, police brought … Watson
in for questioning.
On August 10, 2010, Officer William Hunter, assigned to the
District Attorney’s Office, was working in plainclothes when he was
assigned to search for [Appellant] and … Castro. Around 1:00 p.m.,
Officer Hunter saw [Appellant] driving a red pickup truck near 5th and
Westmoreland Streets, one block away from 5th and Allegheny Streets.
Officer Hunter exited his unmarked patrol car and walked toward
[Appellant’s] vehicle. At that time, Officer Hunter made eye contact
with [Appellant], who immediately drove northbound on 5th Street at a
high rate of speed. Officer Hunter followed the car and notified police
radio of [Appellant’s] flight. [Appellant] drove around the block and
returned to 5th and Westmoreland Streets, where the vehicle was
initially parked. Officer Hunter stopped the vehicle and found … Castro
sitting in the passenger seat. Shortly thereafter, police transported
[Appellant] and … Castro to the Homicide Unit.
On May 17, 2012, … Acevedo pled guilty to third-degree murder
and criminal conspiracy to commit murder. He was offered a twelve and
one-half (12 ½) to thirty (30) year prison sentence if he testified
“truthfully and completely before any grand jury or any hearing or trial
in this case in which the assistant district attorney requests him to
testify.” … Acevedo was also advised that he would be prosecuted for
perjury if he made a false statement under oath. As a result of this plea
agreement, … Acevedo testified against [Appellant] and … Castro.
In August 2010, … Watson met Edward Cameron, the assistant
chief of the Homicide Unit in the District Attorney’s Office and told him
that he feared retaliation from these men because they were dangerous.
Although Mr. Cameron explained the relocation program to … Watson,
… Watson expressed no interest in being enrolled. On November 2,
2010, the Honorable Benjamin Lemer signed an order granting …
Watson immunity in this case. … Watson was subpoenaed to testify as
a Commonwealth witness at trial, but he failed to appear. As a result,
this court determined that … Watson was unavailable and that
[Appellant] had been provided a full and fair opportunity to cross-
examine … Watson at the preliminary hearing. Consequently, the jury
was able to consider … Watson’s preliminary hearing testimony as
substantive evidence.
-5-
J-S07008-18
Commonwealth v. Torres, No. 157 EDA 2013, unpublished memorandum
at 1-6 (Pa. Super. filed Jan. 27, 2014) (quoting Trial Court Opinion, 5/15/13,
at 2-9 (internal citations omitted)).
Based on this evidence, the jury convicted Appellant, and co-defendant
Castro, of third-degree murder, carrying a firearm without a license, and
carrying a firearm on a public street or property in Philadelphia. On August
3, 2012, Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 26 to 52 years’
incarceration. On January 27, 2014, this Court affirmed Appellant’s judgment
of sentence, after which our Supreme Court denied his subsequent petition for
allowance of appeal. See Commonwealth v. Torres, 96 A.3d 1093 (Pa.
Super. 2014), appeal denied, 99 A.3d 77 (Pa. 2014).
On December 24, 2014, Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition. On
February 29, 2016, privately retained counsel entered his appearance on
Appellant’s behalf. Counsel filed an amended petition on January 23, 2016.
On December 5, 2016, the Commonwealth filed a motion to dismiss
Appellant’s petition, and on January 13, 2017, the PCRA court issued a
Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of its intent to do so. On February 6, 2017, Appellant
filed a premature notice of appeal, as the PCRA court had not issued an order
dismissing his petition at that point. On February 24, 2017, the court issued
the order dismissing Appellant’s petition; consequently, we will treat
Appellant’s premature notice of appeal as having been filed on that same day.
See Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(5) (“A notice of appeal filed after the announcement of
a determination but before the entry of an appealable order shall be treated
-6-
J-S07008-18
as filed after such entry and on the day thereof.”). Appellant timely complied
with the PCRA court’s order to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of
errors complained of on appeal, and the court issued a Rule 1925(a) opinion
on October 18, 2017.
Herein, Appellant raises nine issues for our review:
1. INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
A. ALL TRIAL COUNSEL RENDERED IN EFFECTIVE [sic]
ASSISTANCE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO THE TESTIMONY
INDICATING THAT APPELLANT HAD COMMITTED AN ACT OF
RETALIATION[.]
B. APPELLATE COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE
FOR FAILING TO RAISE TRIAL COUNSEL’S INEFFECTIVE
ASSISTANCE FOR FAILING TO CHALLENGE THE TRIAL COURT’S
RULING WHICH DENIED TRIAL COUNSEL’S CROSS-EXAMINATION
OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR REGARDING THE FACT THE HE
POTENTIALLY FACED A LIFE SENTENCE WITHOUT THE
AGREEMENT[.]
C. APPELLATE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO
RAISE ON DIRECT APPEAL THE DECISION BY THE TRIAL COURT
TO PREVENT TRIAL COUNSEL FROM CROSS-EXAMINING THE
WITNESS REGARDING HIS DENIAL THAT HE CONSPIRED TO
COMMIT THE CRIME OF THIRD DEGREE MURDER EVEN AFTER HE
PLED GUILTY TO THE SAME CHARGE THROUGH A COOPERATION
AGREEMENT WITH THE COMMONWEALTH[.]
D. APPELLATE COUNSEL AS WELL AS TRIAL COUNSEL RENDERED
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL FOR FAILING TO
PROPERLY OBJECT AND PRESERVE THE ISSUE OF THE
COMMONWEALTH’S PRESENTATION OF A WITNESS’[S]
TESTIMONY THROUGH THE NOTES OF TESTIMONY AT THE
PRELIMINARY HEARING WITHOUT CHALLENGING THE FULL AND
FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE THAT WITNESS AT THE
PRELIMINARY HEARING[.]
E. APPELLATE COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE
FOR FAILING TO ALLEGE TRIAL COUNSEL’S INEFFECTIVENESS
FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO HEARSAY TESTIMONY.
-7-
J-S07008-18
F. APPELLATE COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE
FOR FAILING TO RAISE TRIAL COUNSEL’S INEFFECTIVENESS FOR
FAILING TO OBJECT TO BAD CHARACTER TESTIMONY FROM A
POLICE OFFICER REGARDING HIS KNOWLEDGE OF APPELLANT.
G. APPELLATE COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE
FOR FAILING TO ALLEGE TRIAL COUNSEL’S INEFFECTIVENESS
FOR FAILING TO SEEK REDACTION OF THE UNDULY PREJUDICIAL
PRELIMINARY HEARING TESTIMONY[.]
H. APPELLATE COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE
FOR FAILING TO RAISE ON DIRECT APPEAL TRIAL COUNSEL’S
MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL BASED ON THE ADMISSION OF
APPELLANT'S ARREST PHOTO[.]
I. APPELLATE COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE
FOR FAILING TO RAISE THE ISSUE OF DARNELL WATSON’S
REQUEST FOR RELOCATION BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S
OFFICE[.]
Appellant’s Brief at 10-11.
First, “[t]his Court’s standard of review from the grant or denial of post-
conviction relief is limited to examining whether the lower court’s
determination is supported by the evidence of record and whether it is free of
legal error.” Commonwealth v. Morales, 701 A.2d 516, 520 (Pa. 1997)
(citing Commonwealth v. Travaglia, 661 A.2d 352, 356 n.4 (Pa. 1995)).
Where, as here, a petitioner claims that he received ineffective assistance of
counsel, our Supreme Court has directed that the following standards apply:
[A] PCRA petitioner will be granted relief only when he proves, by
a preponderance of the evidence, that his conviction or sentence
resulted from the “[i]neffective assistance of counsel which, in the
circumstances of the particular case, so undermined the truth-
determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or
innocence could have taken place.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)(ii).
“Counsel is presumed effective, and to rebut that presumption,
the PCRA petitioner must demonstrate that counsel’s performance
was deficient and that such deficiency prejudiced him.”
[Commonwealth v.] Colavita, 606 Pa. [1,] 21, 993 A.2d [874,]
-8-
J-S07008-18
886 [(Pa. 2010)] (citing Strickland[ v. Washington, 104 S. Ct.
2053 (1984)]). In Pennsylvania, we have refined the Strickland
performance and prejudice test into a three-part inquiry. See
[Commonwealth v.] Pierce, [515 Pa. 153, 527 A.2d 973 (Pa.
1987)]. Thus, to prove counsel ineffective, the petitioner must
show that: (1) his underlying claim is of arguable merit; (2)
counsel had no reasonable basis for his action or inaction; and (3)
the petitioner suffered actual prejudice as a result.
Commonwealth v. Ali, 608 Pa. 71, 86, 10 A.3d 282, 291 (2010).
“If a petitioner fails to prove any of these prongs, his claim fails.”
Commonwealth v. Simpson, [620] Pa. [60, 73], 66 A.3d 253,
260 (2013) (citation omitted). Generally, counsel’s assistance is
deemed constitutionally effective if he chose a particular course of
conduct that had some reasonable basis designed to effectuate his
client’s interests. See Ali, supra. Where matters of strategy and
tactics are concerned, “[a] finding that a chosen strategy lacked
a reasonable basis is not warranted unless it can be concluded
that an alternative not chosen offered a potential for success
substantially greater than the course actually pursued.” Colavita,
606 Pa. at 21, 993 A.2d at 887 (quotation and quotation marks
omitted). To demonstrate prejudice, the petitioner must show
that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s
unprofessional errors, the result of the proceedings would have
been different.” Commonwealth v. King, 618 Pa. 405, 57 A.3d
607, 613 (2012) (quotation, quotation marks, and citation
omitted). “‘[A] reasonable probability is a probability that is
sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the
proceeding.’” Ali, 608 Pa. at 86–87, 10 A.3d at 291 (quoting
Commonwealth v. Collins, 598 Pa. 397, 957 A.2d 237, 244
(2008) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052)).
Commonwealth v. Spotz, 84 A.3d 294, 311-12 (Pa. 2014).
In Appellant’s first issue, he claims that counsel was ineffective for not
objecting to the following testimony elicited from Rene Ortiz Acevedo during
direct-examination:
[The Commonwealth:] And why did you decide to turn yourself in?
[Acevedo:] I was afraid that something will happen to me.
[The Commonwealth:] What do you mean by that?
-9-
J-S07008-18
[Acevedo:] I want nothing to happen to me.
[The Commonwealth:] From whom?
[Acevedo:] [Castro] and [Appellant].
[The Commonwealth:] Were you afraid of them?
[Acevedo:] Yes.
[The Commonwealth:] Why were you afraid of them?
[Acevedo:] Because of what happened.
N.T. Trial, 5/30/12, at 21.
Appellant argues this testimony was inadmissible evidence of prior bad
acts, specifically that he and/or Castro had directly or indirectly threatened
Acevedo. Appellant also claims that Acevedo’s testimony raised an “unduly
suggestive” inference “that Appellant and co-defendant [Castro] had planned
the murder.” Appellant’s Brief at 18. According to Appellant, such an
inference was purely speculative where there was no other evidence “that
Appellant had any awareness that [] co-defendant [Castro] was going to shoot
the decedent.” Id. Appellant avers that trial counsel’s failure to object to this
testimony by Acevedo, and move for a mistrial, “left the jury with the clear
impression that Appellant not only contemplated the murder beforehand, but
attempted to intimidate [Acevedo] so that he would not cooperate with the
police against Appellant and [Castro].” Id. at 19.
Appellant’s argument is unconvincing. Acevedo did not testify that his
fear stemmed from a threat by Appellant or Castro; instead, Acevedo testified
he was afraid of Castro and Appellant because of the victim’s murder.
Moreover, on cross-examination by Appellant’s counsel, Acevedo explicitly
- 10 -
J-S07008-18
was asked whether Appellant or Castro had ever threatened him, and he
responded, “[n]o[,]” and testified that he turned himself in because the police
were looking for him. N.T. Trial, 5/30/12, at 73.
To the extent that Acevedo’s testimony suggested that Appellant and
Castro planned that murder, Appellant does not explain why such an inference
was impermissible. Indeed, the Commonwealth called Acevedo to the stand
for the precise purpose of explaining how the murder occurred, and who was
involved in its planning and commission. Being that Acevedo was an
eyewitness to, and participant in, the victim’s killing, we ascertain nothing
improper about his testimony describing the crime, or his stating that he
feared Appellant and Castro in light of the murder. Therefore, there was no
basis on which trial counsel could have objected to Acevedo’s above-quoted
testimony, and Appellant’s first ineffectiveness claim fails.
In Appellant’s second IAC claim, he contends that his appellate counsel
erred by not arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by limiting the
cross-examination of Acevedo regarding the sentence he was promised in
exchange for his testifying against Appellant and Castro. In particular,
Appellant takes issue with the following portion of Castro’s counsel’s cross-
examination of Acevedo:
[Castro’s Counsel:] Who is it that is going to recommend the
sentence of 12-and-a-half to 30 years for you to this particular
judge?
[Acevedo:] I don’t know.
[Castro’s Counsel:] No idea?
- 11 -
J-S07008-18
[Acevedo:] No.
[Castro’s Counsel:] How about [the Commonwealth’s attorney,
Mr. Lipscomb]?
…
Correct?
[Acevedo:] Yes.
[Castro’s Counsel:] Before you were looking at 12-and-a-half to
30 years in prison, what were you looking at before you cut your
deal?
[Acevedo:] Forty to 80.
[Castro’s Counsel:] Really. What happens if you had gone to trial
and been convicted of first-degree murder?
[Acevedo:] I guess I would be guilty.
[Castro’s Counsel:] Life in prison without parole, correct?
[The Commonwealth:] Objection.
[The Court:] Sustained.
N.T. Trial, 5/30/12, at 45-46.
Appellant now contends that his trial counsel “rendered ineffective
assistance for failing to challenge the trial court’s ruling” that Acevedo could
not testify about the maximum penalty he faced if convicted of first-degree
murder. Appellant’s Brief at 26. In regard to how, exactly, trial counsel should
have handled this matter, Appellant only generally remarks that counsel
should have “attempt[ed] to further cross-examine, or place on the record a
challenge to the trial court’s decision to arbitrarily cut off cross-examination
regarding the powerful motive for this witness to lie.” Id. Appellant also
- 12 -
J-S07008-18
cursorily claims, without any discussion, that, “appellate counsel was
ineffective for failing to raise this issue on direct appeal.” Id.
Appellant’s underdeveloped argument does not convince us that his trial
counsel, or appellate attorney, acted ineffectively. More specifically, he has
not demonstrated that he was prejudiced by either attorney’s conduct. As the
PCRA court reasons:
Here, Acevedo agreed to testify against [Appellant] and Castro in
exchange for a lower sentence than what he originally faced.
There was no violation of [Appellant’s] Sixth Amendment right to
confront an adverse witness because this court did not prevent
trial counsel from cross-examining the witness on this issue.
Indeed, the jury was informed that Acevedo faced a lower
sentence because of his plea agreement. This court denied cross-
examination which would have revealed that [Appellant] faced a
mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of
parole if convicted of first[-]degree murder, which is something a
jury is not permitted to consider in their deliberations.
Commonwealth v. Carbaugh, 620 A.2d 1169, 1171 (Pa. Super.
1993) (stating that the “jury is not to know or to consider
sentences when deliberating”). [Appellant] was able to pursue
appropriate cross-examination of the witness which revealed that
he negotiated a more favorable sentence in exchange for his
testimony. Thus, [Appellant] was not prejudiced by trial counsel’s
failure to challenge this court’s ruling, and appellate counsel
cannot be ineffective for failing to make a meritless claim on direct
appeal.
PCRA Court Opinion (PCO), 10/18/17, at 12-13. For the reasons stated by
the PCRA court, Appellant’s second ineffectiveness claim fails.
In Appellant’s third IAC issue, he argues that his appellate counsel was
ineffective for not challenging the trial court’s decision to prevent Castro’s
counsel from eliciting certain testimony from Acevedo on cross-examination.
- 13 -
J-S07008-18
Specifically, Appellant points to the following testimony and ruling by the
court:
[Castro’s Counsel:] Okay. When you got in the car, did you see
anybody with a gun before you got out at 4th and Ashdale?
[Acevedo:] No.
[Castro’s Counsel:] Nobody talked about a gun or killing anybody?
[Acevedo:] No.
[Castro’s Counsel:] And, in fact, your testimony was, on the ride
up there, all you did was listen to music?
[Acevedo:] Yes.
[Castro’s Counsel:] You certainly didn’t go there agreeing to kill
somebody, did you?
[Acevedo:] No.
[Castro’s Counsel:] You didn’t go there intending to kill anybody,
did you?
[Acevedo:] No.
[Castro’s Counsel:] So explain to the jury why you pled guilty in
front of this judge to conspiracy and to murder?
[The Commonwealth:] Objection.
[The Court:] Overruled.
[Acevedo:] Because I was with them. That’s conspiracy.
[Castro’s Counsel:] That’s what a conspiracy is? Just
because you were present?
[The Commonwealth:] Objection.
[The Court:] That’s sustained.
N.T. Trial, 5/30/12, at 51-52 (emphasis added).
Appellant contends that Castro’s counsel’s above-emphasized question
was “a proper one[,]” in that it was “an attempt to explore the contradiction
- 14 -
J-S07008-18
between [Acevedo’s] agreement to plead guilty and his testimony that he was
not part of any conspiracy.” Appellant’s Brief at 28. According to Appellant,
“[t]his question goes directly to [Acevedo’s] credibility” and “to the heart of
Appellant’s defense … that Appellant … was not involved in any conspiracy to
commit murder, but rather he was merely present at the scene.” Id. Thus,
Appellant avers that the trial court erred by not permitting this questioning of
Acevedo, and “[t]here was no rational explanation for the failure of [a]ppellate
counsel to raise this issue on direct appeal.” Id. at 29.
In rejecting this claim, the PCRA court concluded that it had “properly
sustained the objection [to Castro’s counsel’s above-emphasized question] as
improper cross-examination of a lay witness about the legal definition of
conspiracy. Thus, there was no basis for [appellate] counsel to challenge this
court’s ruling.” PCO at 14. We agree with the PCRA court. Castro’s counsel’s
phrasing of the at-issue question called for “specialized knowledge beyond
that possessed by a lay person[,]” namely, knowledge of the legal definition
of criminal conspiracy. Pa.R.E. 702(a) (stating what testimony may be offered
by an expert witness). While a lay witness may testify in the form of an
opinion if it is “rationally based on the witness’s perception[,]” Castro’s
counsel’s question of Acevedo did not call for such an opinion. Instead, the
PCRA court concluded that the question essentially would elicit an expert
opinion by Acevedo, a lay witness. We discern no error in the PCRA court’s
decision. Thus, Appellant has failed to demonstrate that his underlying claim
of ineffectiveness has arguable merit.
- 15 -
J-S07008-18
In Appellant’s fourth issue, he asserts that his appellate counsel acted
ineffectively by not challenging on appeal the fact that the trial court permitted
the Commonwealth to introduce the transcript of the preliminary hearing
testimony of an unavailable witness, Darnell Watson. Appellant acknowledges
that appellate counsel did challenge the admission of the transcript of
Watson’s testimony on the ground that Watson was not truly ‘unavailable’ to
testify at trial. However, Appellant argues that appellate counsel should have
also raised a claim that Appellant did not have a full and fair opportunity to
cross-examine Watson at the preliminary hearing and, thus, the transcript of
his prior testimony should not have been admitted. Specifically, Appellant
contends:
The testimony of Darnell Watson, offered through the notes
of the preliminary hearing, deprived trial counsel the opportunity
to fully explore through cross-examination the witness’[s] motive
to fabricate, [and the] opportunity to change that story over the
course of time. This area of inquiry was crucial as the witness
faced increased scrutiny by the homicide detectives and
prosecutors, which included the ability to confront the witness with
his prior record. Appellate counsel failed to raise this part of the
issue addressed by trial counsel. The failure to provide a full and
fair opportunity to cross-examine the witness was clear on the
record, and therefore, there was no explanation as to appellate
[counsel’s] decision not to raise it on direct appeal. While
appellate counsel raised the question regarding the
Commonwealth’s lack of proof regarding Watson’s unavailability,
the more compelling argument to exclude this evidence[] was the
failure of Appellant’s counsel to have a full and fair opportunity to
cross-examine Watson during the preliminary hearing without
access to the statements, including a videotaped statement taken
from Watson months later. Without the ability to confront the
witness with these very significant pieces of information, Appellant
was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to cross-examine
Watson at the preliminary hearing regarding the subsequent
- 16 -
J-S07008-18
statements made to homicide. Appellant’s trial counsel was not
able to explore the content, as well as the context of these
subsequent statements. The decision to admit the notes of
testimony deprived Appellant [of] a fair trial, and appellate
counsel can offer no rational explanation [for failing] to raise this
on direct appeal.
Appellant’s Brief at 32-33.
In addressing Appellant’s argument, we begin by noting that,
[u]nder both our federal and state constitutions, a criminal
defendant has the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses
against him at trial. Commonwealth v. Bazemore, 531 Pa. 582,
585, 614 A.2d 684, 685 (1992) (citations omitted). However, it is
well-established that an unavailable witness’ prior recorded
testimony from a preliminary hearing is admissible at trial and will
not offend the right of confrontation, provided the criminal
defendant had counsel and a full opportunity to cross-examine
that witness at the prior proceeding. Id. 614 A.2d at 687 (citation
omitted) (emphasis added). The exception to the hearsay rule that
permits the admissions of an unavailable witness’ prior testimony
at a preliminary hearing is “predicated on the ‘indicia of reliability’
normally afforded by adequate cross-examination. But where that
‘indicia of reliability’ is lacking, the exception is no longer
applicable.” Id. 614 A.2d at 687 (citations omitted). The
Commonwealth may not be deprived of its ability to present
inculpatory evidence at trial merely because the defendant,
despite having the opportunity to do so, did not cross-examine
the witness at the preliminary hearing stage as extensively as he
might have done at trial. Commonwealth v. Cruz-Centeno, 447
Pa. Super. 98, 668 A.2d 536, 542 (1995) (citation omitted).
However, where the defense, at the time of the preliminary
hearing, was denied access to vital impeachment evidence, a full
and fair opportunity to cross-examine the unavailable witness may
be deemed to have been lacking at the preliminary hearing. Id.,
668 A.2d at 543 (citing Bazemore, supra). The opportunity to
impeach a witness is particularly important where the
Commonwealth’s entire case hinges upon the testimony of the
unavailable witness. Commonwealth v. Smith, 436 Pa. Super.
277, 647 A.2d 907, 913 (1994) (citing Bazemore, supra).
- 17 -
J-S07008-18
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 758 A.2d 166, 169 (Pa. Super. 2000)
(emphasis in original).
Appellant’s argument fails to convince us that his appellate counsel
acted ineffectively by not arguing that Appellant did not have the opportunity
to conduct a full and fair cross-examination of Watson. Initially, we note that
Watson’s preliminary hearing testimony was merely cumulative of Acevedo’s
trial testimony in this case. Thus, Watson’s testimony was not central to the
Commonwealth’s prosecution, as in Bazemore, one of the cases on which
Appellant relies.
In any event, Appellant’s claim fails because he does not explain what,
specifically, Watson said in the out-of-court statements to police that
Appellant’s trial counsel could have utilized in cross-examining Watson.
Indeed, Appellant does not even make a general allegation that the
statements were inconsistent with Watson’s preliminary hearing testimony.
The same is true for Appellant’s bald reference to Watson’s prior record;
Appellant does not say whether Watson’s prior crimes included crimen falsi
offenses that could have been used to impeach Watson’s credibility. Thus,
unlike the cases on which Appellant relies, Bazemore and Johnson, we
cannot determine that Appellant’s trial counsel could have used Watson’s
statements to police, or his prior record, to more fully cross-examine Watson
at the preliminary hearing. Accordingly, Appellant has not established that he
was prejudiced by appellate counsel’s failure to argue on direct appeal that
Appellant was deprived of a full and fair opportunity to cross-examine Watson.
- 18 -
J-S07008-18
In Appellant’s next issue, he avers that his trial counsel was ineffective
for failing to object to hearsay testimony offered by Glorimar Marquez, who
was Acevedo’s girlfriend at the time of the murder. First, Appellant claims
that trial counsel should have objected to certain testimony offered by
Marquez, which he reproduces in his appellate brief, as follows:
[The Commonwealth]: When they came back, he did not have the
Jeep?
Ms. Marquez: Yes.
[The Commonwealth]: Did you ask what happened to the Jeep?
Ms. Marquez: Yes.
[The Commonwealth]: He said that they left it over there. A couple
of days later, a day, they all got together and they drove
somewhere and I don’t know they took the Jeep over there I
guess.
Appellant’s Brief at 34-35.
Appellant provides no citation to where in the record this testimony was
offered. See id. at 35. While our review of the record reveals testimony by
Marquez that is similar to that quoted supra, no testimony by Marquez exactly
aligns with that set forth in Appellant’s brief. Additionally, Appellant seems to
omit portions of her testimony, and questions by the Commonwealth, without
indicating that he is doing so, rendering his representation of the record
incomplete and misleading.
We also find Appellant’s argument that his counsel acted ineffectively
by not objecting to this purported testimony to be unconvincing. Although
Appellant briefly argues that Marquez’s testimony was “classic hearsay and
- 19 -
J-S07008-18
not within the scope of any exception to the hearsay rule[,]” id., he provides
no discussion of how this specific testimony prejudiced him. Instead,
Appellant seemingly suggests that the above-testimony was only prejudicial
due to the following, subsequent testimony that was elicited from Ms. Marquez
on direct-examination:1
[Ms. Marquez:] Okay. [Rene Ortiz Acevedo] said [that] when they
all left in the van, they started driving. They went up to this guy.
They took him, supposedly met Pella and the black guy was
roughing and fighting or whatever. And Pella took the gun and
emptied the whole clip on him.
[The Commonwealth:] That’s what [Acevedo] told you?
[Ms. Marquez:] Yes.
[The Commonwealth:] And you recall, did he tell you that [sic]
this was over?
[Ms. Marquez:] Yes.
[The Commonwealth:] What did he say?
[Ms. Marquez:] Over drugs.
[The Commonwealth:] Was he more specific than that?
[Ms. Marquez:] No. He said it was just over drugs that was, I
guess, owed or stolen.
[Appellant’s Counsel]: Objection, Your Honor.
[Castro’s Counsel]: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled, go on.
[The Commonwealth:] They were owed or stolen?
____________________________________________
1 Again, Appellant does not accurately quote Marquez’s testimony in his brief
to this Court. However, he provides a citation to the record where the disputed
testimony can be found; thus, we reproduce it as it appears in the transcript,
rather than as Appellant presents it in his appellate brief.
- 20 -
J-S07008-18
[Ms. Marquez:] Yes.
[The Commonwealth:] Did he say by whom they were stolen?
[Ms. Marquez:] He didn’t say no name, but he did say it was the
black guy.
[The Commonwealth:] Who had stolen the drugs?
[Ms. Marquez:] Yes.
[The Commonwealth:] Did he say who the drugs had been stolen
from?
[Ms. Marquez:] He just said from the corner.
[The Commonwealth:] Was he more specific about whose corner
it was?
[Appellant’s Counsel:] Objection.
[Castro’s Counsel:] Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
[The Commonwealth:] Was he more specific about whose corner
it was?
[Ms. Marquez:] Yes.
[The Commonwealth:] Whose corner?
[Ms. Marquez:] He said Memo’s.
N.T. Trial, 5/31/12, at 102-04.
Appellant now contends that “[n]one of the testimony set forth above
should have been admitted” because it was hearsay that does not meet any
exception to the rule precluding hearsay. Appellant’s Brief at 36. However,
Appellant fails to acknowledge that, during the examination of Marquez,
Appellant’s trial counsel, and Castro’s counsel, twice objected, once to an
answer by Marquez, and once to a question asked by the Commonwealth.
- 21 -
J-S07008-18
Appellant does not explain what more trial counsel should have done to keep
the jury from considering Marquez’s at-issue statements.
In any event, we agree with the PCRA court that Appellant has not
demonstrated that he was prejudiced by the admission of Marquez’s
testimony. As the court explains:
There can be no prejudice for failure to object to hearsay
testimony when the testimony was “merely cumulative of other,
properly admitted testimony.” Commonwealth v. Wallace, 724
A.2d 916, 922 (Pa. 1999); see also Commonwealth v.
Johnson, 838 A.2d 663, 673-74 (Pa. 2003) (stating that
admission of hearsay evidence is harmless when it is cumulative
of other evidence).
[Appellant] claims that Marquez’s testimony about what
Acevedo told her about the shooting and the stolen drugs was
hearsay. However, this testimony was merely cumulative of
testimony from Darnell Watson and Rene Ortiz Acevedo that was
properly admitted. Specifically, Marquez’s testimony was
cumulative of Acevedo’s testimony about what happened the night
of the murder, and he testified that he told Marquez about it.
Under these circumstances, trial counsel was not ineffective for
failing to object to the testimony….
PCO at 15-16. Appellant offers no argument to challenge the PCRA court’s
determination that he failed to prove prejudice. As the record supports that
determination, we reject Appellant’s fifth ineffectiveness claim.
In Appellant’s sixth issue, he maintains that his trial counsel was
ineffective for failing to object to testimony by Police Officer William Hunter,
who stated that he knew Appellant by his nickname, “Memo,” and that he
knew where Appellant could be found. See Appellant’s Brief at 40, 41.
Although Appellant recognizes that the officer also testified that he did not
know Appellant because he had arrested him “or anything like that[,]”
- 22 -
J-S07008-18
Appellant claims that Officer Hunter’s testimony improperly inferred that the
officer “knew Appellant through his police work.” Id. at 41 (quoting N.T. Trial,
5/31/12, at 155). In other words, Appellant asserts that Officer Hunter’s
testimony constituted improper evidence of Appellant’s prior criminal activity
and, thus, it should have been objected to by trial counsel.
In rejecting this claim, the PCRA court reasoned as follows:
[S]imply because a police officer testified about knowing
[Appellant], [it] does not imply prior criminal activity or bad
character. The Superior Court has stated:
Merely because a police officer knows someone or knows
where they may be found does not suggest that the person
has been engaged in prior criminal activity. A policeman
may know someone because they reside in the same
neighborhood or for any number of reasons. We refuse to
hold that a policeman’s statement to the effect that he knew
someone, knew his nickname, or was familiar with the
person’s whereabouts raises an inference of prior criminal
activity.
Commonwealth v. Sanders, 442 A.2d 817, 818 (Pa. Super.
1982).
Officer Hunter, who grew up in that neighborhood and had
been assigned there for many years[,] testified that he knew
[Appellant’s] nickname and where he could be found. He also
testified that he did not know the nickname because of a previous
arrest or prior criminal conduct. Thus, an objection to his
testimony would have been meritless, and counsel cannot be
ineffective for failing to raise a meritless claim. See
Commonwealth v. Riggins, 386 A.2d 520, 524 (Pa. 1978).
PCO at 16.
Again, Appellant does not challenge the PCRA court’s decision, nor make
any attempt to distinguish Officer Hunter’s testimony from the type of
testimony addressed in Sanders. After reviewing that case, we agree with
- 23 -
J-S07008-18
the PCRA court that Officer Hunter’s testimony did not constitute ‘prior bad
acts’ evidence, as Appellant claims. Accordingly, Appellant’s trial counsel was
not ineffective for failing to object to the officer’s testimony on this basis.
Next, Appellant claims that certain portions of Darnell Watson’s
preliminary hearing testimony, once admitted into evidence at trial, should
have been redacted. In particular, Appellant takes issue with Watson’s
testimony that, in the car just prior to the murder, Appellant and/or Castro
were talking on the telephone to an unidentified woman about her selling
drugs, and about who stole the drugs from Appellant. According to Appellant,
this inadmissible hearsay testimony demonstrated “that Appellant and this
unknown woman were engaged in a drug conspiracy and that … Appellant’s
drugs were stolen….” Appellant’s Brief at 44. Appellant avers that trial
counsel should have requested that this portion of Watson’s testimony be
redacted, and counsel’s failure to do so “was clearly prejudicial as it deprived
Appellant of a fair trial.” Id. at 45.
We conclude that Appellant has not demonstrated that he was
prejudiced by counsel’s decision not to request the redaction of this portion of
Watson’s preliminary hearing testimony. The at-issue testimony was brief,
and to the extent that Watson mentioned drugs being stolen from Appellant,
that testimony was clearly cumulative of Acevedo’s trial testimony. See N.T.
Trial, 5/30/12, at 11. Additionally, a close reading of the disputed portion of
Watson’s testimony reveals that Watson said Acevedo, not Appellant, was
talking on the phone with the unidentified woman. See N.T. Trial, 6/1/12, at
- 24 -
J-S07008-18
23 (Watson’s stating that “Ortiz,” i.e., Acevedo, got the phone call from the
woman). Thus, Watson’s passing remarks about Acevedo’s telephone
conversation with an unidentified woman were merely cumulative of
Acevedo’s properly admitted testimony, and did not prejudice Appellant.
In Appellant’s eighth IAC claim, he argues that the jury was improperly
shown arrest photographs of Appellant, which, “in conjunction with the other
bad character evidence admitted during the course of the trial,” unfairly
prejudiced Appellant and warrants a new trial. Appellant’s Brief at 49.
Initially, we note that Appellant fails to clarify whether he is challenging trial
counsel’s representation, or that of his appellate attorney. For instance, he
states the issue as a challenge to appellate counsel’s representation, see id.
at 45, yet his argument focuses entirely on trial counsel’s handling of the
admission of the photographs. Appellant also confusingly states that his
“[t]rial counsel properly moved for a mistrial” when the photographs were
“published to the jury,” but then later claims that, “[t]rial counsel’s failure to
object to this evidence amounted to ineffective assistance which prejudiced
Appellant….” Id. at 48, 49.
Our review of the record reveals that trial counsel did object to the
admission of the photographs, and moved for a mistrial, on the basis that they
impermissibly suggested to the jury that Appellant “was arrested before.”
N.T. Trial, 6/1/12, at 167-72. The court denied the motion for a mistrial. Id.
at 175. Therefore, Appellant’s claim that trial counsel acted ineffectively is
belied by the record. To the extent that Appellant baldly avers that appellate
- 25 -
J-S07008-18
counsel was ineffective, we reject that assertion, as Appellant has presented
no meaningful discussion to support it.2
Appellant’s ninth and final ineffectiveness issue involves the following
testimony by Detective Byard, elicited during cross-examination by Castro’s
attorney:
[Castro’s Counsel:] Where did [Darnell Watson] go [after giving a
statement to police]?
[Detective Byard:] We called the Warrant Unit to see if they
wanted him. They told us to give him another date. We did.
He went over to see [Assistant District Attorney (A.D.A.)]
Cameron to talk to him because he wanted to be relocated, and
once he talked to A.D.A. Cameron, then he was released.
____________________________________________
2 We also note that Appellant wholly disregards the PCRA court’s rationale for
rejecting this claim, which was that “the photographs shown to the jury were
of [Appellant’s] tattoos and birthmark. There was no indication the
photographs were mug shots or from an arrest. There was no prejudice
because the jury could not have reasonably inferred the photographs indicated
[Appellant] had engaged in prior criminal activity.” PCO at 17. Appellant in
no way challenges the court’s characterization of the photographs on appeal.
Instead, he merely argues that the only conclusion the jury could draw from
these ‘arrest photos’ was that he had a prior record, given the other evidence
suggesting the same - namely, “Officer Hunter’s testimony that he knew
Appellant from a particular corner prior to his arrest in this case….” Appellant’s
Brief at 48. However, as discussed supra, Officer Hunter’s testimony did not
improperly suggest that Appellant had a criminal history, and the officer even
explicitly stated that his knowledge of Appellant did not stem from any arrest.
See N.T. Trial, 5/31/12, at 155. As such, we reject Appellant’s claim that “the
only conclusion” the jury could draw from the photographs of his tattoos and
birthmark, in conjunction with Officer Hunter’s testimony, was that he had
previously been arrested. Appellant’s Brief at 47.
- 26 -
J-S07008-18
N.T. Trial, 6/1/12, at 138-39 (emphasis added). Appellant’s counsel did not
object to this testimony. However, at the close of Detective Byard’s
testimony, and outside the presence of the jury, Appellant’s counsel objected
to the above-emphasized comment, asking that the testimony be stricken, or
a mistrial be granted. Id. at 161-62. The trial court denied those requests.
Id. at 163-66.
Now, Appellant contends that Detective Byard’s remark was “completely
inadmissible[,]” and that it left the jury with the “impression … that Watson’s
unavailability was the result of his fear of Appellant.” Appellant’s Brief at 50.
However, Appellant’s argument regarding counsel’s ineffectiveness is once
again confusing. For instance, while Appellant recognizes that trial counsel
objected to the detective’s testimony and moved for a mistrial, he then
contradicts himself by stating that, “[t]here was no rational basis for trial
counsel’s failure to redact this hearsay testimony.” Id. at 51. Additionally,
Appellant presents the issue as a challenge to appellate counsel’s
representation, yet he offers no discussion of why appellate counsel erred by
not raising, on direct appeal, a claim that the trial court erred by not granting
the relief requested by trial counsel.
From our review of the record, it is apparent that trial counsel acted
effectively by challenging the at-issue testimony, requesting it be stricken,
and moving for a mistrial. To the extent that appellate counsel chose not to
raise this issue on direct appeal, Appellant has not developed any meaningful
- 27 -
J-S07008-18
argument to demonstrate that counsel’s decision amounted to ineffective
representation.3 Therefore, Appellant’s final issue is meritless.
In sum, none of Appellant’s nine ineffectiveness claims warrants relief.
Consequently, the PCRA court did not err in denying his petition.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/17/18
____________________________________________
3 We also note our agreement with the PCRA court that “[n]othing in the trial
record could lead a reasonable juror to conclude that [Appellant] had
threatened Watson.” PCO at 17. Moreover, Detective Byard’s remark about
Watson’s desire to be relocated was isolated and brief and, as the PCRA court
stresses, “[t]he evidence against [Appellant] was overwhelming….” Id. Thus,
we agree with the PCRA court that Appellant has not demonstrated “the
prejudice standard articulated in Strickland, supra.” Id. at 18.
- 28 -