Com. v. Cottle, C. ( 2019 )

J-S10032-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
CHRISTOPHER COTTLE :
:
Appellant : No. 1425 EDA 2018
Appeal from the PCRA Order April 26, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0000962-2008
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., STABILE, J., and COLINS*, J.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.: FILED MARCH 22, 2019
Appellant, Christopher Cottle, appeals from the order entered in the
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, which denied his first petition
brought pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), at 42 Pa.C.S.A.
§§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
In its opinion, the PCRA court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant
facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no need to
restate them. Procedurally, we add initial PCRA counsel filed a motion to
withdraw as counsel on April 26, 2018, when the court stated on record it
denied Appellant PCRA relief. That same day, the PCRA court permitted
counsel to withdraw and appointed new PCRA counsel. Appellant filed a
timely notice of appeal on May 16, 2018. The PCRA court ordered Appellant
on May 21, 2018, to file a concise statement of errors complained of on
____________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S10032-19
appeal per Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b); Appellant complied on July 5, 2018, following
an extension.
Appellant raises two issues for our review:
WHETHER THE [PCRA] COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING
APPELLANT’S PETITION UNDER THE [PCRA] WITHOUT AN
EVIDENTIARY HEARING[?]
WHETHER THE [PCRA] COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING
APPELLANT’S AMENDED PETITION UNDER THE [PCRA][?]
(Appellant’s Brief at 4).
Our standard of review of the denial of a PCRA petition is limited to
examining whether the evidence of record supports the court’s
determination and whether its decision is free of legal error.
Commonwealth v. Conway, 14 A.3d 101, 109 (Pa.Super. 2011), appeal
denied, 612 Pa. 687, 29 A.3d 795 (2011). This Court grants great deference
to the findings of the PCRA court if the record contains any support for those
findings. Commonwealth v. Boyd, 923 A.2d 513, 515 (Pa.Super. 2007),
appeal denied, 593 Pa. 754, 932 A.2d 74 (2007). We give no such
deference, however, to the court’s legal conclusions. Commonwealth v.
Ford, 44 A.3d 1190, 1194 (Pa.Super. 2012). Further, a petitioner is not
entitled to a PCRA hearing as a matter of right; the PCRA court can decline
to hold a hearing if there is no genuine issue concerning any material fact,
the petitioner is not entitled to PCRA relief, and no purpose would be served
by any further proceedings. Commonwealth v. Wah, 42 A.3d 335, 338
(Pa.Super. 2012); Pa.R.Crim.P. 907.
-2-
J-S10032-19
The law presumes counsel has rendered effective assistance.
Commonwealth v. Williams, 597 Pa. 109, 950 A.2d 294 (2008). Under
the traditional analysis, to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel, a petitioner bears the burden to prove his claims by a
preponderance of the evidence. Commonwealth v. Turetsky, 925 A.2d
876 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal denied, 596 Pa. 707, 940 A.2d 365 (2007).
The petitioner must demonstrate: (1) the underlying claim is of arguable
merit; (2) counsel had no reasonable strategic basis for the asserted action
or inaction; and (3) but for the errors and omissions of counsel, there is a
reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceedings would have been
different. Id. See also Commonwealth v. Kimball, 555 Pa. 299, 724
A.2d 326 (1999). “A reasonable probability is a probability that is sufficient
to undermine confidence in the outcome of the proceeding.”
Commonwealth v. Spotz, 624 Pa. 4, 34, 84 A.3d 294, 312 (2014)
(quoting Commonwealth v. Ali, 608 Pa. 71, 86-87, 10 A.3d 282, 291
(2010)). “Where it is clear that a petitioner has failed to meet any of the
three, distinct prongs of the…test, the claim may be disposed of on that
basis alone, without a determination of whether the other two prongs have
been met.” Commonwealth v. Steele, 599 Pa. 341, 360, 961 A.2d 786,
797 (2008).
“The threshold inquiry in ineffectiveness claims is whether the
issue/argument/tactic which counsel has foregone and which forms the basis
-3-
J-S10032-19
for the assertion of ineffectiveness is of arguable merit….” Commonwealth
v. Pierce, 537 Pa. 514, 524, 645 A.2d 189, 194 (1994). “Counsel cannot
be found ineffective for failing to pursue a baseless or meritless claim.”
Commonwealth v. Poplawski, 852 A.2d 323, 327 (Pa.Super. 2004).
Once this threshold is met we apply the ‘reasonable basis’
test to determine whether counsel’s chosen course was
designed to effectuate his client’s interests. If we conclude
that the particular course chosen by counsel had some
reasonable basis, our inquiry ceases and counsel’s
assistance is deemed effective.
Pierce, supra at 524, 645 A.2d at 194-95 (internal citations omitted).
Prejudice is established when [a defendant] demonstrates
that counsel’s chosen course of action had an adverse
effect on the outcome of the proceedings. The defendant
must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but
for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the
proceeding would have been different. A reasonable
probability is a probability sufficient to undermine
confidence in the outcome. In [Kimball, supra], we held
that a “criminal defendant alleging prejudice must show
that counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the
defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.”
Commonwealth v. Chambers, 570 Pa. 3, 21-22, 807 A.2d 872, 883
(2002) (some internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Glenn B.
Bronson, we conclude Appellant’s issues merit no relief. The PCRA court
opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions
presented. (See PCRA Court Opinion, filed August 6, 2018, at 6-9) (finding:
trial counsel objected when Commonwealth attempted to introduce
-4-
J-S10032-19
Brandon’s police statement before Commonwealth asked Brandon about
incident, and court sustained objection; later, when Brandon testified he
knew nothing about incident and did not recall making statement to police,
Commonwealth introduced Brandon’s statement to police as prior
inconsistent statement; Commonwealth offered testimony from police
officers to prove Brandon had made statement, reviewed statement, made
no corrections to statement, and acknowledged statement accurately
memorialized what he had told police; Rules of Evidence did not require
Commonwealth to refresh Brandon’s recollection with prior statement before
introducing statement; further, Commonwealth’s offer of statement during
direct examination of Brandon, before evidence from detectives to prove
Brandon had made statement, gave Brandon opportunity to explain or deny
making statement; trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise second
objection to admission of Brandon’s prior statement to police; based on
foregoing, PCRA evidentiary hearing would have served no purpose). The
record supports the PCRA court’s rationale. Accordingly, we affirm on the
basis of the PCRA court opinion.
Order affirmed.
-5-
J-S10032-19
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/22/19
-6-
,.,.., .......
)
)
l Circulated 03/04/2019 04:02 PM
\
)
j
,.
I
,.
1=\LED
0
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CRIMINAL TRIAL DIVISION
CP-51-CR-0000962-2008
/-- - _ _._ - . ·--
v.
l IIIIIIIJll!WJIIIIII
CP-51-<;R.0000002·2008 Comm. v. Collie. Ctvislcphef
Opinion
CHRISTOPHER COTTLE
OPINION
BRONSON, J. August 6, 2018
On March 8, 2012, following a jury trial before this Court, defendant Christopher Cottle
was convicted of one count of murder of the first degree (18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(a)), one count of
conspiracy to _commit arson (18 Pa.C.S. §§ 903, 3301 (a)(l)(i)), one count of conspiracy to
commit assault (18 Pa.C.S. §§ 903, 2702(a)(l)), and one count ofrecklessly endangering another
person (18 Pa.C.S. § 2705).1 The Court immediately imposed the mandatory sentence of life in
prison for the murder charge (18 Pa.C.S. § 1102(a)(l )). No further penalty was imposed on the
remaining charges. Defendant was represented at trial, sentencing, and on direct appeal by Gary
S. Server, Esquire.
On July 3, 2013, the Superior Court affirmed defendant's judgment of sentence. The
Supreme Court denied allocatur on November 6, 2013. Defendant then filed a prose petition
under the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA") on May 14, 2014. Jennifer Bretschneider,
Esquire was appointed to represent defendant on January 19, 2016. On April 28, 2017, Ms.
Bretschneider filed an Amended PCRA Petition ("Amended Petition"). On November 22, 2017,
after reviewing the Amended Petition, the Commonwealth's Motion to Dismiss, defendant's
1Defendant was acquitted of arson (18 Pa.C.S. § 3301(a)(l)(i), conspiracy to commit murder (18 Pa.C.S. §§ 903,
2502(a)), and conspiracy to commit robbery ( 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 903, 370 l(a)(l)(iii)).
Response to the Commonwealth's Motion to Dismiss Petitioner's Amended PCRA Petition, and
. .
the Commonwealth's Sur-reply to Defendant's Response to the Motion to Dismiss, this Court
ruled that the claims set forth in defendant's Amended Petition were without merit. That day,
pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907, the Court issued notice of its intent to dismiss the petition without
a hearing ("907 Notice'} Defendant filed a prose response to the 907 Notice on December 15,
2017. On April 26, 2018, the Court entered an order dismissing defendant's PCRA Petition. In
addition, the Court granted Ms. Bretschneider's motion to withdraw, and appointed Benjamin
Cooper, Esquire to represent defendant on appeal.
Defendant has now appealed the Court's dismissal of his PCRA Petition, alleging that
trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the admissibility of a pretrial statement to
police given by Commonwealth witness Brandon Cottle. Defendant also claims that the PCRA
court erred by dismissing his claim without an evidentiary hearing. Appellant's Concise
Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal in Accordance with Pa.R.A.P. § l 925(b)
CStatement of Errors") at ,i11�2.2 For the reasons set forth below, defendant's claim is without
merit and the PCRA Court's order dismissing his PCRA Petition should be affirmed.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The factual background of this matter is set forth in the Court's Rule 1925(a) opinion
filed in defendant's direct appeal as follows:
At trial, the Commonwealth presented the testimony of Lasheena Cottle, Karen
Childrey, Roslyn Spearman, Brandon Cottle, Ryan Gallagher, Dr. Sam Gulino,
Philadelphia Police Officers Terrence Lewis and Andre Daniels, Philadelphia
Police Detectives Crystal Williams, John McDermott, Thorsten Lucke, Joseph
Bannberski, and Howard Peterman, Philadelphia Police Sergeant Stephen Crosby,
and Philadelphia Fire Department Lieutenant Bordes Ramseur. Defendant
presented the testimony of Cheryl Moses. Viewed in the light most favorable to
2
The additional paragraphs in defendant's Statement of Errors contain argument in support of defendant's claims.
Defendant's claims have been reordered for ease of disposition.
2
the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, their testimony established the
following.
On or about January l l , 2007, Brandon Cottle, the brother of the defendant, heard
the defendant talking to Rick Hughes about killing a neighbor, Joseph Briggman.
N.T. 3/6/2012 at 172-173.3 Two days after this conversation, on January 13,
2007, defendant told Brandon Cottle to "{ c Jome on over with us and be the
lookout." N.T. 3/6/2012 at 172; 3/7/2012 at 39. Brandon Cottle, defendant, and
Rick Hughes entered the home of Mr. Briggman, located at 2421 North Patton
Street. N.T. 3/6/2012 at 169-172. After the three men entered the home,
defendant told Brandon Cottle to check upstairs to see if anyone other than Mr.
Briggman was in the home. N.T. 3/6/2012 at 172. Brandon Cottle went upstairs,
and when he came back down, defendant had Mr. Briggman in a chokehold. N.T.
3/6/2012 at 172. Brandon Cottle went down to check the basement, and when he
returned to the main floor of the house, defendant was still holding Mr. Briggman
as Rick Hughes stabbed him repeatedly. N.T. 3/6/2012 at 172. At one point, Mr.
Briggman broke free from defendant's grasp and stabbed him in the leg. N.T.
3/6/2012 at 172-173; 3/7/2012 at 41-42.
At the same time, Lasheena Cottle was getting ready for work in the home that
she shared with her two brothers, defendant and Brandon Cottle, at 2428 North
Patton Street. N.T. 3/5/2012 at 229-231. Rick Hughes, the father of her child,
had spent the night at the home. N.T. 3/5/2012 at 230. As she prepared for work
in her upstairs bathroom, she heard an explosion. N. T. 3/5/2012 at 231. She
looked across the street and saw that the home belonging to her neighbor, Mr.
Briggman, was on fire. N.T. 3/5/2012 at 231. Although Rick Hughes had spent
the night in her home, and she had heard one of her brothers in the house that
morning, Lasheena Cottle was alone in the house at the time that the fire broke
out across the street. N.T. 3/5/2012 at 232-233.
At the time of the explosion, Roslyn Spearman was buying drugs on the corner of
Patton Street and York Street, approximately six to eight houses from Mr.
Briggman Is residence, when she heard an explosion and saw defendant and
Brandon Cottle running out of Mr. Briggman's residence. N.T. 3/6/2012 at 81-
86. One block away from Ms. Spearman, another woman, Karen Childrey, was
using drugs with her cousin on some outdoor steps on the 2500 block of Patton
Street. N.T. 3/6/2012 at 59-60. Ms. Childrey heard a loud "boom," but did not
know the source of the explosion. N.T. 3/6/2012 at 61-62.
When the Philadelphia Fire Department arrived at the scene to investigate the
explosion that had destroyed Mr. Briggman's house, they determined the cause of
the fire and resulting explosion to be a person or persons lighting gasoline on fire
within the house. N.T. 3/6/2012 at 39-42. While investigating the source of the
fire, members of the Fire Department discovered the body of Mr. Briggman inside
3
Rick Hughes's case was severed from defendant's due to the unavailability of his counsel. Brandon Cottle agreed
to cooperate and pied guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit murder (J 8 Pa.C.S. §§ 903, 2502).
3
the house. N.T. 3/6/2012 at 18-19. Mr. Briggman was pronounced dead at the
scene. N.T. 3/6/2012 at 113. Although the cause of his death was later
determined to be multiple stab wounds, he was burned over 70 percent of his
body from the fire. N. T. 3/6/2012 at 115, 122. Mr. Briggman had been stabbed
five times in the head and neck, five times in the chest, once in the shoulder, and
once in the back. N.T. 3/6/2012 at 115.
Police arrived shortly after the explosion and approached Ms. Childrey and her
cousin, who told police they did not know where the explosion came from, and
that all they heard was a loud noise. N.T. 3/6/2012 at 62-63. After the police left,
defendant approached Ms. Childrey and told her "don't talk to the cop." N.T.
3/6/2012 at 64-65. Later in the day, defendant returned and told Ms. Childrey
again not to talk to the police, this time threatening her with a gun. N.T. 3/6/2012
at 64-65.
On the night of January 13, 2007, Lasheena Cottle saw Rick Hughes for the first
time since the fire that morning. N.T. 3/5/2012 at 233-234. He had bums and
bruises on both his face and his hands. N.T. 3/5/2012 at 234. The next day,
Lasheena Cottle noticed defendant limping and he told her he had been stabbed.
N.T. 3/5/2012 at 235-236, 239.
On June 7, 2007, the Fugitive Unit of the Philadelphia Police Department arrested
defendant and Brandon Cottle for the murder of Mr. Briggman. N.T. 3/6/2012 at
161; 3/7/2012 at 28. Brandon Cottle confessed to being the "lookout" for his
brother and Rick Hughes as they killed defendant, and told the police other details
of the crime. N.T. 3/6/2012 at 169-170; 3/7/2012 at 41-44. Defendant also gave
a statement to police, in which he admitting selling crack cocaine to Mr.
Briggman for years and that Mr. Briggman, in the past, had owed him money.
N.T. 3/7/2012 at 9L He claimed that, on the day of the incident, he had gone over
to Mr. Briggman's house to sell him drugs, and was there attacked by Mr.
Briggman and some unknown man and was stabbed by Mr. Briggman in the leg.
He claimed to have fled from the house after pushing Mr. Briggman onto a glass
coffee table, but denied being present when anyone stabbed Mr. Briggman. N.T.
3/7i2012 at 85-92. Police searched defendant and found a healed stab wound on
his leg. N.T. 3/7/2012 at 45-48.
I
Trial Court Opinion, filed October 4, 2012, at pp. 2-5.
II. DISCUSSION
An appellate court's review of a PCRA court's grant or denial of relief "is limited to
determining whether the court's findings are supported by the record and the court's order is
otherwise free oflegal error." Commonwealth v. Yager, 685 A.2d 1000, 1003 (Pa. Super. 1996)
4
(citing Commonwealth v. Legg, 669 A.2d 389, 391 (Pa. Super. 1995)). The reviewing court "will
not disturb findings that are supported by the record." Id.Here, defendant's only substantive claim pertains to the alleged ineffective assistance of
trial counsel. Under Pennsylvania law, counsel is presumed effective and the burden to prove
otherwise lies with the petitioner. Commonwealth v. Basemore, 144 A.2d 717, 728 (Pa. 2000),
n.10 (citing Commonwealth v. Copenhefer, 719 A.2d 242, 250 (Pa. 1998)). To obtain collateral
relief based on the ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must show that counsel's
representation fell below accepted standards of advocacy and that as a result thereof, the
petitioner was prejudiced. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984). In
Pennsylvania, the Strickland standard is interpreted as requiring proof that: (1) the claim
underlying the ineffectiveness claim had arguable merit; (2) counsel's actions lacked any
reasonable basis; and (3) the ineffectiveness of counsel caused the petitioner prejudice.
Commonwealth v. Miller, 987 A.2d 638, 648 (Pa. 2009); Commonwealth v. Pierce, 527 A.2d
973, 974� 75 (Pa. 1987). To satisfy the third prong of the test, the petitioner must prove that, but
for counsel's error, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceeding would
have been different. Commonwealth v. Sneed, 899 A.2d 1067, 1084 (Pa. 2006) (citing
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694). If the PCRA court determines that any one of the three prongs
cannot be met, then the court need not hold an evidentiary hearing as such a hearing would serve
no purpose. Commonwealth v. Jones, 942 A.2d 903, 906 (Pa. Super. 2008), app. denied, 956
A.2d 433 (Pa. 2008).
5
A. Failure to Object to the Introduction, Admission, and Reading of Brandon Cottle 's
Pre-trial Statement to Police
Defendant first claims that trial counsel failed to "object to the introduction, admission
and reading of Commonwealth witness Brandon Cottle's pretrial statement to police ... "
Statement of Errors at ,r 2. This claim is without merit.
At trial, the Commonwealth presented the testimony o_f Brandon Cottle, defendant's
younger brother.4 Prior to defendant's trial, Brandon was interviewed by detectives and
confessed to acting as a lookout while defendant and his coconspirator, Rick Hughes, stabbed the
victim, Joseph Briggman, to death. N.T. 3/6/12 at 169-70. In his statement to the detectives,
Brandon gave detailed information regarding the murder. In particular, he told the detectives that
a few days prior to the murder, he had heard defendant and Hughes talking about killing
Briggman. He also stated that on the day of the murder, defendant instructed him to enter
Briggman's home with defendant and Hughes, and to check the home to see if anyone else was
there. N.T. 3/6/12 at 172. According to the statement, once Brandon checked the basement of
the home, he came upstairs to find defendant holding Briggman down, while Hughes was
repeatedly stabbing him. Id. However, at trial, Brandon denied knowing anything about the
incident and claimed not to remember giving the portions of his statement to detectives in which
he inculpated defendant and Hughes. N.T. 3/6/12 at 162-81. As a result, the Commonwealth
presented the signed police statement of Brandon Cottle, here at issue.
Rule 803.1 ( 1) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence sets forth an exception to the
hearsay rule for certain prior inconsistent statements of witnesses who testify at trial and are
subject to cross-examination. Included under this exception to the hearsay rule are statements
that have been reduced to a writing that was signed and adopted by the witness. Pa.RE.
4
Because Brandon Cottle and his brother, defendant Christopher Cottle, both have the same surname, Brandon
Cottle is referred to hereafter as "Brandon."
6
803.1(1)(8). Such statements are admissible as substantive evidence even when the witness
repudiates the prior statement during his testimony at trial. As long as the Commonwealth
proves that the statement was signed by the witness and adopted at some time prior to the trial, it
is covered by this hearsay exception. See Commonwealth v. Brown, 52 A.3d 1139, 1169-71 (Pa.
2012). Such prior inconsistent statements alone may be sufficient to sustain a guilty verdict. Id.Here, Brandon, at trial, claimed to know nothing about the incident, and to not recall
giving his statement to detectives. Therefore, his statement to police containing detailed
information about the killing was plainly inconsistent with his trial testimony. Moreover, the
Commonwealth offered the testimony of Detective John McDermott, who took the statement
along with Detective David Baker, to prove that Brandon made the statement. N.T. 3/7/12 at 27-
44. In addition, Detective Chrystal Williams testified that she read back the entire statement to
Brandon, and that he made no corrections, signed each page of the statement, and acknowledged
that the statement accurately memorialized what he had told the detectives. N.T. 3/7/12 at 19-22,
25. Therefore, the statement was properly admitted as substantive evidence under Rule
803.l(l)(B).
Defendant argues that defense counsel failed to object to the prosecutor reading
Brandon's statement to the jury without a proper foundation. In particular, he contends that the
statement was read, without counsel objecting, before Brandon gave any testimony inconsistent
with the statement, and before any writing was used to attempt to refresh his recollection. This
argument is meritless.
It is true that the prosecutor attempted to introduce the statement before asking Brandon
anything about the events at issue in the case. Because Brandon had yet to give testimony
inconsistent with the statement, its introduction at that time would have been improper.
7
However, trial counsel did object to the introduction of the statement at that time, and the Court
sustained the objection. N.T. 3/6/12 at 161-65. Thereafter, Brandon denied knowing what
happened to the decedent, Joseph Briggman, during the month of the murder, even though
Brandon had pleaded guilty to conspiring to kill Briggman. N.T. 3/6/12 at 165-67. He claimed
that he was high when he pied guilty and when he gave the statement to detectives. Id at 166-
67. Once Brandon denied any knowledge of the killing, his detailed accounting of the events in
his statement was inconsistent with his trial testimony and was properly admitted. See
Commonwealth v. Carmody, 799 A.2d 143, 148-49 (Pa. Super. 2002) (where witness claimed
she had blacked out from alcohol and could not recall anything that had happened, her prior
statement to police was admissible).
It is also true that the prosecutor made no attempt to refresh Brandon's recollection with
his prior statement. However, there is no requirement, in the Rules of Evidence or elsewhere,
that such an attempt be made before offering a prior inconsistent statement.
Finally, it is true that the prosecutor read the statement during the direct examination of
Brandon, prior to offering the evidence from the detectives to prove that the statement had been
made and adopted by Brandon.· However, extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement is
generally not admissible, even just for impeachment purposes, unless the statement is first
disclosed to the witness, and the witness is given an opportunity to explain or deny the making of
the statement. Pa.R.E. 613(b).
Accordingly, Brandon's statement to police was properly admitted as substantive
evidence under Rule 803. l(l)(B). Although the Commonwealth attempted to question Brandon
about the statement before a proper foundation had been laid, defense counsel objected and a
proper foundation was presented. Thereafter, any objection by counsel to the statement would
8
• ' • t
Commonwealth v. Christopher Cottle CP-5 l-CR-0000962-2008
Type of Order: 1925(a) Opinion
PROOF OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I am this day serving the foregoing Court Order upon the person(s), and in
the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of Pa.R.Crim.P.114:
Defense Counsel/Party:
Benjamin Cooper, Esquire
1500 Walnut St
22nd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Type of Service: ( ) Personal (X) First Class Mail O Other, please specify:
District Attorney:
Lawrence Goode, Esquire
Interim Supervisor, Appeals Unit
Office of the District Attorney
Three South Penn Square
Philadelphia, PA 19107-3499
Type of Service ( ) Personal () First Class Mail (X) Other, please specify: Interoffice Mail
Additional Counsel/Party:
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esquire
Prothonotary
Office of the Prothonotary - Superior Court
530 Walnut Street, Suite 315
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Type of Service: ( ) Personal (X) First Class Mail ( ) Other, please specify:
Dated: August 6, 2018