J-S66045-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee :

:

v. :

:

TAJI J. LEE, :

:

Appellant : No. 2005 MDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order entered on April 23, 2012

in the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County,

Criminal Division, No(s): CP-14-CR-0000333-2005;

CP-14-CR-0000334-2005; CP-14-CR-0000335-2005;

CP-14-CR-0000336-2005; CP-14-CR-0000793-2005

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., SHOGAN and MUSMANNO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED DECEMBER 23, 2014

Taji J. Lee (“Lee”), pro se,

1

appeals from the Order dismissing his 

second Petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act 

(“PCRA”). See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.

The PCRA court concisely set forth the relevant history underlying this 

appeal in its Opinion dated February 21, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as 

“Rule 1925(a) Opinion”), which we incorporate herein by reference. See

 

1 On August 28, 2012, the PCRA court granted Lee’s request to remove his 

PCRA counsel and proceed pro se.
J-S66045-14

- 2 -

Rule 1925(a) Opinion, 2/21/14, at 1-4.2 Ronald McGlaughlin, Esquire 

(hereinafter “Attorney McGlaughlin”) represented Lee at trial and on direct 

appeal.

Following the entry of the PCRA court’s October 28, 2013 Order 

“reinstat[ing Lee’s] PCRA appeal rights in their entirety,”3Lee timely filed a 

pro se Notice of Appeal and a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise 

Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal. In response, the PCRA court 

issued its Rule 1925(a) Opinion. 

On appeal, Lee presents the following issues for our review:

1. Did the [PCRA] court err in failing to find [Attorney 

McGlaughlin] ineffective for failing to strike [a] biased 

juror?

2. Did the [PCRA] court err in failing to find [Attorney 

McGlaughlin] ineffective for erroneously advising [Lee] that 

he could not testify?

3. Did the [PCRA] court err in failing to find [Attorney 

McGlaughlin] ineffective for failing to litigate prosecutorial 

misconduct in withholding discovery documents?

4. Did the [PCRA] court err in failing to find [Attorney 

McGlaughlin] ineffective for failing to object [to] or 

challenge the propriety of [the] jury instruction for 

 

2 We observe that the PCRA court incorrectly states the date on which this 

Court affirmed Lee’s judgment of sentence as January 16, 2009. In fact, we 

affirmed the judgment of sentence on March 10, 2008. See 

Commonwealth v. Lee, 953 A.2d 601 (Pa. Super. 2008) (unpublished 

memorandum). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court subsequently denied 

allowance of appeal on December 17, 2008. See Commonwealth v. Lee, 

962 A.2d 1196 (Pa. 2008).

3 The Commonwealth did not appeal from the Order reinstating Lee’s appeal 

rights, nunc pro tunc.
J-S66045-14

- 3 -

entrapment, and for dismissing [this] claim without [a] 

hearing?

5. Did the [PCRA] court err in failing to find [Attorney 

McGlaughlin] ineffective for failing to properly develop 

[Lee’s] entrapment issue on direct review, and for 

dismissing [this] claim without [a] hearing?

6. Did the [PCRA] court err in failing to find [Attorney 

McGlaughlin] ineffective for failing to correct the record on 

[direct] appeal?

7. Did the [PCRA] court err in failing to find [Attorney 

McGlaughlin] ineffective for failing to brief [the] issue of 

perjury suborned by [the] Commonwealth[, which issue 

was] raised in [Lee’s Pa.R.A.P.] 1925(b) Statement [on 

direct appeal]?

8. Did the [PCRA] court err in failing to find [Attorney 

McGlaughlin] ineffective for failing to litigate [the issue of] 

prosecutorial misconduct in suborning perju[ry before the] 

grand jury, and [by] dismissing [this] claim without [a] 

hearing?

9. Did the [PCRA] court err in failing to find [Attorney 

McGlaughlin] ineffective for failing to properly frame and 

litigate [Lee’s] recusal claim on direct review, and [by] 

dismissing [this] claim without [a] hearing?

10. Did the [PCRA] court err in failing to find [Attorney 

McGlaughlin] ineffective for failing to litigate [the issue of] 

prosecutorial misconduct by the [Commonwealth for] 

depriving [Lee] from calling witnesses thr[ough] threats of 

perjury charges, and [by] dismissing [this claim] without 

[a] hearing?

Brief for Appellant at 5-6 (capitalization omitted).4

The applicable standards of review regarding the dismissal of a PCRA 

petition and ineffectiveness claims are as follows:

 

4 We note that, like Lee’s Statement of Questions Presented, his appellate 

brief is voluminous, spanning 70 pages.
J-S66045-14

- 4 -

Our standard of review of a PCRA court’s [dismissal] of a 

petition for post[-]conviction relief is well-settled: We must 

examine whether the record supports the PCRA court’s 

determination, and whether the PCRA court’s determination is 

free of legal error. The PCRA court’s findings will not be 

disturbed unless there is no support for the findings in the 

certified record.

 * * *

It is well-established that counsel is presumed to have 

provided effective representation unless the PCRA petitioner 

pleads and proves all of the following: (1) the underlying legal 

claim is of arguable merit; (2) counsel’s action or inaction lacked 

any objectively reasonable basis designed to effectuate his 

client’s interest; and (3) prejudice, to the effect that there was a 

reasonable probability of a different outcome if not for counsel’s 

error. The PCRA court may deny an ineffectiveness claim if the 

petitioner’s evidence fails to meet a single one of these prongs. 

Moreover, a PCRA petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating 

counsel’s ineffectiveness.

Commonwealth v. Franklin, 990 A.2d 795, 797 (Pa. Super. 2010) 

(citations omitted). 

Lee first argues that Attorney McGlaughlin was ineffective for failing to 

seek the removal of one of the jurors who heard Lee’s case, Jason Baney 

(“Baney”). See Brief for Appellant at 16-19. Lee points out that Baney had 

informed the trial court, during trial, that Baney’s father worked at the 

Centre County Correctional Facility (where Lee was incarcerated at the 

time), which, Baney stated, caused him concern for his safety. Id. at 16 

(citing N.T., 5/23/06, at 346-50). Lee additionally asserts that Baney was 

prejudiced against him because Baney (1) allegedly saw sheriffs escorting 
J-S66045-14

- 5 -

Lee out of the courthouse in handcuffs;5and (2) heard a news story 

pertaining to Lee’s case. See Brief for Appellant at 16, 17. According to 

Lee, “[h]ad [Attorney McGlaughlin] objected to the trial court[’]s failure to 

not immediately decide [] Baney’s partiality ..., [] Baney could have been 

removed from the jury, or[,] upon the trial court[’]s refusal to remove [] 

Baney, [Attorney McGlaughlin] could have motioned the court for a mistrial 

....” Id. at 19.

The PCRA court addressed this claim in its Rule 1925(a) Opinion, and 

correctly determined that Attorney McGlaughlin was not ineffective, since 

Lee had personally decided that he wanted to keep Baney on the jury. See

Rule 1925(a) Opinion, 2/21/14, at 6-7; see also N.T., 5/25/06, at 1269-70 

(wherein Attorney McGlaughlin informed the trial court judge, prior to 

deliberations, that “I have discussed it with my client, and ... [Lee] did 

indicate, for the record, that he has no objection to [Baney] remaining as a 

... juror.”). We affirm with regard to this issue based on the PCRA court’s 

rationale. See Rule 1925(a) Opinion, 2/21/14, at 6-7.6 

Next, Lee asserts that Attorney McGlaughlin was ineffective because 

he allegedly “advis[ed Lee] that he could not testify” at trial, ignoring Lee’s 

repeated statements that he wanted to testify. Brief for Appellant at 20 

 

5

In actuality, Baney testified that Lee was not in handcuffs. See N.T., 

5/23/06, at 345.

6 As an addendum, we observe that Attorney McGlaughlin did, in fact, move

for a mistrial after it was revealed that Baney saw Lee being escorted from 

the courthouse. See N.T., 5/23/06, at 339. 
J-S66045-14

- 6 -

(capitalization omitted). According to Lee, “[Attorney McGlaughlin] 

interfered with [Lee’s] right to testify in the form of advice so unreasonable, 

[that] counsel vitiated [Lee’s] decision to testify by believing that he didn’t 

have a choice.” Id. at 21.

Our Pennsylvania Supreme Court has explained that 

[t]he decision of whether or not to testify on one’s own behalf is 

ultimately to be made by the defendant after full consultation 

with counsel. In order to sustain a claim that counsel was 

ineffective for failing to advise the appellant of his rights in this 

regard, the appellant must demonstrate either that counsel 

interfered with his right to testify, or that counsel gave specific 

advice so unreasonable as to vitiate a knowing and intelligent 

decision to testify on his own behalf.

Commonwealth v. Nieves, 746 A.2d 1102, 1104 (Pa. 2000) (citations 

omitted).

In its Rule 1925(a) Opinion, the PCRA court addressed Lee’s 

ineffectiveness claim in this regard and properly rejected it. See Rule 

1925(a) Opinion, 2/21/14, at 11-12. We agree with the PCRA court’s 

rationale, which is supported by the record, and affirm on this basis with 

regard to this issue. See id.

In his third issue, Lee argues that Attorney McGlaughlin was ineffective 

for failing to raise on direct appeal a claim asserting prosecutorial 

misconduct regarding the Commonwealth’s alleged failure to disclose 

exculpatory evidence to the defense. See Brief for Appellant at 25-30. 

Specifically, Lee contends that the Commonwealth failed to turn over a 

purported 2002 police “debriefing report” containing information from one of 
J-S66045-14

- 7 -

the Commonwealth’s key witnesses, Kenyon Ebeling (“Ebeling”), as to when 

she first met Lee and the time period during which Lee was selling drugs. 

Id. at 26. According to Lee, “[h]ad [Attorney McGlaughlin] received this 

document, there’s a reasonable likelihood that it would have been the tip of 

the iceberg in [establishing Lee’s] entrapment defense.” Id. at 29.

The PCRA court addressed this claim in its Rule 1925(a) Opinion and 

correctly rejected Lee’s contention that Attorney McGlaughlin was ineffective 

for not raising this claim on direct appeal. See Rule 1925(a) Opinion, 

2/21/14, at 10-11. We affirm with regard to this issue based on the PCRA 

court’s rationale. See id.

Next, Lee asserts that “the [PCRA] court erred in failing to find 

[Attorney McGlaughlin] ineffective for failing to object [to] and/or challenge 

the propriety of [the trial court’s] jury instruction on entrapment, and not 

having an evidentiary hearing on [this] claim.” Brief for Appellant at 30 

(capitalization omitted); see also id. at 34 (wherein Lee states that he 

“pleads that the jury charge was not incorrect, but inadequate to clarify the 

confusion within the jury.”). Lee points out that, during deliberations, the 

jury requested clarification regarding the entrapment instruction on three 

separate occasions. Id. at 30-31. According to Lee, “the trial court erred in 

failing to give an example of what entrapment consist[s] of, more than what 

it means. The juries [sic] returning and requesting the rereading of the 

entrapment instruction presumes confusion and need of clarity.” Id. at 33.
J-S66045-14

- 8 -

In its Opinion and Order dated March 12, 2010, the PCRA court 

addressed this claim and determined that Attorney McGlaughlin was not 

ineffective because there is no merit to Lee’s underlying challenge to the 

trial court’s clarification of the jury instruction on entrapment. See Opinion 

and Order, 3/12/10, at 4-5. Because the PCRA court’s analysis and 

determination is supported by the law, we affirm on this basis concerning 

Lee’s instant ineffectiveness challenge. See id.; see also Commonwealth 

v. Einhorn, 911 A.2d 960, 975 (Pa. Super. 2006) (holding that a trial 

court’s issuance of a jury instruction will only constitute reversible error 

where the court made an inaccurate statement of law).

In his fifth issue, Lee maintains that Attorney McGlaughlin was 

ineffective for (1) failing to establish an entrapment defense at trial; and (2) 

“not properly developing [an] entrapment claim on direct appeal.” Brief for 

Appellant at 36, 37 (capitalization omitted). Although we have reviewed 

Lee’s brief, we will not summarize herein Lee’s voluminous argument in 

support of these claims. See id. at 36-43.

Initially, we observe that this Court, on direct appeal, thoroughly 

addressed Lee’s entrapment defense claim and rejected it. See 

Commonwealth v. Lee, 953 A.2d 601 (Pa. Super. 2008) (unpublished 

memorandum at 8-11). Moreover, the PCRA court, in its Opinion and Order 

dated March 12, 2010, addressed Lee’s challenge to Attorney McGlaughlin’s 

effectiveness and rejected it. See Opinion and Order, 3/12/10, at 5-6. We 
J-S66045-14

- 9 -

agree with the PCRA court’s sound analysis and affirm on this basis 

concerning this issue. See id.7 

In his sixth issue, Lee contends that Attorney McGlaughlin was 

ineffective for failing to correct a purported inaccuracy in the record in 

counsel’s brief to this Court on direct appeal, which omission allegedly 

denied Lee meaningful appellate review. See Brief for Appellant at 43-45. 

Specifically, Lee contends that “[i]n the trial court’s [Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)] 

Opinion [issued in response to Lee’s direct appeal], the trial court misstated 

the facts in rejecting [Lee’s] entrapment claim. The trial court reasoned that 

the [confidential informant, Ebeling,] was not involved in any of the 

[narcotics] deliveries [of] which [Lee] was convicted.” Brief for Appellant at 

43 (internal citation omitted) (citing Trial Court Opinion, 1/9/07, at 6).8 Lee 

maintains that this Court on direct appeal improperly relied upon the trial 

court’s factual misstatement in this regard. See Brief for Appellant at 43; 

see also Lee, 953 A.2d 601 (unpublished memorandum at 11). According 

 

7 Moreover, because Lee’s claim of Attorney McGlaughlin’s ineffectiveness on 

direct appeal concerning the entrapment defense is predicated upon a 

layered claim of counsel’s ineffectiveness in this regard at trial, this claim 

also fails.

8 The trial court’s Opinion stated, in relevant part, as follows:

Lee’s entrapment claim must fail first and foremost because [] 

Ebeling did not play any role in the charges for which [Lee] was 

convicted. [Lee] was found guilty only of hand-to-hand deliveries 

made directly to Agent Scott Merrill. Any impact [that] [] Ebeling’s 

actions may have had on [Lee] was eliminated when [Lee] began 

dealing directly with Agent Merrill. 

Trial Court Opinion, 1/9/07, at 6.
J-S66045-14

- 10 -

to Lee, “there is a strong probability that had the Superior Court had an 

accurate record of the facts surrounding [Lee’s] entrapment claim, this claim 

would have prevailed.” Brief for Appellant at 45.

The PCRA court thoroughly addressed Lee’s sixth issue in its Rule 

1925(a) Opinion, and rejected his ineffectiveness challenge, finding that any 

misstatement by either the trial court or this Court was inconsequential 

because Ebeling’s testimony was not crucial to the Commonwealth’s case, 

and there was more than ample evidence to convict Lee, even without any 

testimony from Ebeling. See Rule 1925(a) Opinion, 2/21/14, at 12-16. We 

affirm with regard to this issue based on the PCRA court’s sound rationale, 

which is supported by the record. See id.

Next, Lee argues that the PCRA court erred by failing to find Attorney 

McGlaughlin ineffective for his failure to argue, on direct appeal, that Ebeling 

had committed perjury at trial,9 despite having originally raised this matter 

in Lee’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on 

Appeal. See Brief for Appellant at 46-52. According to Lee, Attorney 

McGlaughlin’s “[o]mitting this meritorious issue lacks any reasonable basis 

or strategic foundation[,] ... and a competent attorney would not have 

committed such an omission. The [C]ommonwealth knew [that] [] Ebeling 

was testifying falsely and allowed such testimony to continue without 

correction[.]” Id. at 51.

 

9

Lee exhaustively sets forth his allegations of Ebeling’s allegedly perjured 

testimony in his brief. See Brief for Appellant at 49-51.
J-S66045-14

- 11 -

In its Rule 1925(a) Opinion, the PCRA court addressed Lee’s 

ineffectiveness claim in this regard, as well as Lee’s underlying claim of 

Attorney McGlaughlin’s failure to object to Ebeling’s allegedly false testimony 

at trial, and properly rejected these claims. See Rule 1925(a) Opinion, 

2/21/14, at 8-10. We agree with the PCRA court’s rationale, which is 

supported by the record, and affirm on this basis with regard to this issue. 

See id.10

In his eighth issue, Lee argues that the PCRA court should have found 

that Attorney McGlaughlin was ineffective for failing to litigate prosecutorial 

misconduct, which allegedly occurred at Lee’s grand jury proceedings. See

Brief for Appellant at 52-57; see also id. at 56 (wherein Lee alleges that he 

“was indicted based upon the falsified testimony presented knowingly and 

willingly by the [C]ommonwealth through several witnesses to the grand 

jury.”). Specifically, Lee asserts that both Ebeling and a police officer 

involved in the investigation of Lee’s case, Detective Ferron, gave perjured 

testimony, which Attorney McGlaughlin should have addressed. See id. at 

 

10 Like the PCRA court, we determine that Attorney McGlaughlin articulated a 

reasonable basis for his decision to not include a challenge to the veracity of 

Ebeling’s trial testimony among the seven separate allegations of trial court 

error that he argued in Lee’s direct appeal. See Commonwealth v. Lesko, 

15 A.3d 345, 380 (Pa. 2011) (stating that, “[g]enerally, where matters of 

strategy and tactics are concerned, counsel’s assistance is deemed 

constitutionally effective if he chose a particular course that had some 

reasonable basis designed to effectuate his client’s interests.”) (citation 

omitted); Commonwealth v. Puksar, 951 A.2d 267, 277 (Pa. 2008) 

(stating that “[a] claim of ineffectiveness cannot succeed through 

comparing, in hindsight, the trial strategy employed with alternatives not 

pursued.”).
J-S66045-14

- 12 -

53 (claiming, inter alia, that (a) “Ebeling testified falsely about dates, [and] 

fabricated incidents, places, homicides, and [Lee having] assault[ed] her[;]” 

and (b) “Detective Ferron testified to information from uncorroborated 

informants, [and] to alleged incidents as ‘facts’ that were later refuted by 

the people claimed to have been involved.”).

On direct appeal, this Court addressed and rejected Lee’s underlying 

claim of prosecutorial misconduct, as it pertained to the allegedly false grand 

jury testimony of Ebeling and Detective Ferron. See Lee, 953 A.2d 601 

(unpublished memorandum at 6-8); see also Opinion and Order, 3/12/10, 

at 6 (wherein the PCRA court noted, for the purpose of Lee’s instant 

ineffectiveness challenge, that the underlying claim of prosecutorial 

misconduct was rejected by this Court). Accordingly, because this Court has 

already rejected Lee’s underlying claim, his challenge to Attorney 

McGlaughlin’s effectiveness predicated upon the underlying claim must fail. 

See Franklin, supra (stating that a claim of ineffectiveness will fail if the 

underlying legal claim lacks arguable merit).

In his ninth issue, Lee argues that the PCRA court erred in failing to 

find Attorney McGlaughlin to be ineffective for his failure to adequately 

frame and develop, on direct appeal, Lee’s claim that the trial court judge 

who presided over Lee’s preliminary hearing and trial, the Honorable Bradley 

P. Lunsford, should have recused himself from the case. See Brief for 
J-S66045-14

- 13 -

Appellant at 57-61.11 According to Lee, there were “legitimate reasons for 

the recusal of Judge Lunsford, from the Judge[’]s possession of information 

regarding [Lee’s] case pre-trial from his capacity as a district magistrate, to 

the altercation between Judge Lunsford and [Lee] during arraignment, to the 

comments made by Judge Lunsford while campaigning regarding [Lee], and 

his intentions to be tuff [sic] on drug offenders[.]” Id. at 59-60. 

The PCRA court addressed and rejected this ineffectiveness challenge 

in its Opinion and Order dated March 12, 2010, and concluded that Attorney 

McGlaughlin properly developed and briefed the underlying claim on appeal. 

See Opinion and Order, 3/12/10, at 3-4. We agree with the PCRA court’s 

analysis, and affirm on this basis in rejecting Lee’s instant ineffectiveness 

challenge. See id.

In his tenth issue, Lee contends that Attorney McGlaughlin was 

ineffective for failing to raise on direct appeal a claim asserting prosecutorial 

misconduct regarding the Commonwealth’s alleged intimidation of witnesses 

in efforts to prevent them from testifying at Lee’s trial. See Brief for 

Appellant at 61-68; see also id. at 63 (arguing that Attorney McGlaughlin 

erred by originally raising this claim of prosecutorial misconduct in Lee’s Rule 

 

11 Attorney McGlaughlin did, in fact, argue on direct appeal that Judge 

Lunsford erred in failing to recuse himself, which claim this Court rejected. 

See Lee, 953 A.2d 601 (unpublished memorandum at 5-6). In the instant 

appeal, Lee challenges the adequacy of Attorney McGlaughlin’s framing and 

development of the recusal claim. See, e.g., Brief for Appellant at 60 

(arguing that “[c]ounsel should have framed the issue as [Judge Lunsford] 

erred in failing to recuse himself from the recusal hearing, and for testifying 

from the bench over objection, after the trial court denied [the] motion for 

recusal.”).
J-S66045-14

- 14 -

1925(b) Concise Statement, but then abandoning the issue on direct appeal 

before this Court). 

In its Opinion and Order, the PCRA court determined that Lee waived 

his underlying prosecutorial misconduct challenge because he failed to raise 

it on direct appeal. See Opinion and Order, 3/12/10, at 7 (citing 

Commonwealth v. Rollins, 738 A.2d 435, 441 (Pa. 1999) (holding that a 

claim of prosecutorial misconduct must be raised on direct appeal or it is 

waived)). Concerning Lee’s challenge to Attorney McGlaughlin’s 

effectiveness in this regard, Lee fails to cite to any evidence of record to 

support his bald allegation that the Commonwealth committed the egregious 

act of intimidating witnesses from testifying on behalf of the defense. 

Accordingly, Lee’s final claim of Attorney McGlaughlin’s ineffectiveness does 

not entitle him to relief.

Finally, after reviewing the claims presented in Lee’s two pro se

Responses to the Commonwealth’s Motions to Dismiss Lee’s PCRA Petitions, 

we conclude that the PCRA court properly determined that none of these 

claims entitles Lee to collateral relief.

Accordingly, we conclude that the PCRA court neither abused its 

discretion nor committed an error of law by dismissing Lee’s second PCRA 

Petition, and we therefore affirm the Order on appeal.

Order affirmed.
J-S66045-14

- 15 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/23/2014
Circulated 11/26/2014 02:49 PM

) - ~h(P Uf-,) - / If 

111111111 11111111111 OOOOHX81 CCGPRQ 20'002 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CENTRE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 

CRIMINAL DIVISION 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Respondent 

vs. 

TAJI J. LEE, 

Petitioner 

Attorney for Commonwealth: 

Attorney for Defendant: 

Lunsford, J. 

NO. 2005-793 

NO. 2005-333 

NO. 2005-334 

NO. 2005-335 

NO. 2005-336 

William R. Stoyeos, Esq. 

Tami Fees, Esq. t";i) ~." 

~-uO 6 r ..-{ :::obi :s:: 1'1 . ;:00:::0 ;:.> 0 

m':2:l> ::0 ." OPINION and ORDER 

BACKGROUND 

n'o a QZ~ N :::r.J 

C:.o._ :::r.J 

Z~3: 1] 1'1 '-13>3: 

~(TJ .,J::" ("') 

On May 25, 2006, Taji J. Lee, Petitioner, was convicted of twenty-six~Count~f d~ bJ 

related offenses. On July 16, 2006, he was sentenced in accordance with the applicable 

mandatory minimum sentences and standard range sentencing guidelines. He was ordered to 

serve the sentences consecutively, for an aggregate sentence of thirty (30) to sixty (60) years. 

On July 7,2006, Petitioner filed Post Sentence Motions. On November 7,2006, he filed 

Supplemental Post Sentence Motions. On November 22, 2006, this Court issued an Order 

denying the Post Sentence Motions. On December 7, 2006, Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal to 

the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. On January 16, 2009, the judgment of sentence was 

affirmed by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. On the same day, a Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal was denied by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. On March 27, 2009, Petitioner filed a 

pro se PCRA Petition. Counsel was appointed for Petitioner. On May 27, 2009, Petitioner filed a 

counseled Amended PCRA Petition raising thirteen (13) grounds for relief. On September 16, 

2009, the Commonwealth filed a Brief in Response to Defendant's Amended Counseled PCRA 

claims. On October ·15, 2009, the Commonwealth filed a Motion to Dismiss without Evidentiary 

~\. 
Circulated 11/26/2014 02:49 PM

Hearing specifically seeking dismissal of claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 13. On October 23, 2009, this 

Court entered an Order requiring Petitioner to file a response to the Motion to Dismiss. On 

November 13, 2009, counsel for Petitioner requested (via e-mail) a ten (10) day extension to file 

a response which this Court granted. No further extensions were requested. On February 10, 

2010, the Commonwealth filed a Motion for Disposition of the Motion to Dismiss. To date, 

Petitioner has not filed a response to the Commonwealth's Motion to Dismiss. 

DISCUSSION 

- A court shall dismiss a PCRA petition without a hearing with the petition fails to comply 

with the mandatory pleading requirements set forth in the PCRA stat~te and the Pennsylvania 

Rules of Criminal Procedure. Commonwealth v. Rivers, 786 A.2d 923 (Pa. 2001). A Court may 

deny a PCRA claim without a hearing where: (1.) there are no issues concerning any material 

fact; (2.) defendant is not entitled to relief as a matter of law; and, (3.) no purpose would be 

served by further proceedings. Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(1); Commonwealth v. Morrison, 878 A.2d 102, 

105 (Pa. Super. 2005). Furthermore, a court may dismiss a PCRA claim even where genuine 

issues of material fact exist, if the court determines the filing is "patently frivolous" or that the 

facts alleged would not, even if true, entitle defendant to relief under the law. Comment to . 

Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. Given Petitioner's failure to respond to the Motion to Dismiss and upon 

thorough review and consideration of the Motion to Dismiss PCRA claims, this Court determines 

dismissal of PCRA claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 13 is appropriate. 

In claims 3, 4, 5, 6, and 9, Petitioner argues ineffective assistance of counsel. The 

Pennsylvania Supreme Court has set forth the following test for ineffectiveness of counsel: 

[t]he constitutional ineffectiveness standard requires the defendant 

to rebut the presumption of professional competence by 

demonstrating that (1.) his underlying claim is of arguable merit; 

(2.) the particular course of conduct pursued by counsel did not 

have some reasonable basis designed to effectuate his interests; 

and (3.) but for counsel's ineffectiveness, there is a reasonable 

probability that the outcome of the proceedings would have been 

2 
Circulated 11/26/2014 02:49 PM

different. A failure to satisfy any prong of the test for 

ineffectiveness will require rejection of the claim. 

Commonwealth v. Reeves, 923 A.2d 1119, 1127 (Pa. 2007). To make a successful claim of 

ineffective counsel, a defendant must plead and prove that his counsel's performance was 

deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. Reaves, 923 A.2d at 1127 

citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). When assessing an attorney's 

performance the court must look "both to the arguable merit of the claim lodged against counsel 

as well as the objective reasonableness of the path taken, or not taken by counsel." Reaves, 

923 A.2d at 1127. When evaluating prejudice, a court must ask whether the defendant has 

proven that "there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the 

result of the proceeding would have been different." Id. 

Regarding claim 3, Petitioner alleged his appellate counsel failed to properly frame and 

develop Petitioner's argument regarding recusal of the trial judge. The trial judge was a 

Magisterial District Judge prior to being elected to the bench of the Centre County Court of 

Common Pleas. Petitioner complained that because the trial judge, in his former role as 

Magisterial District Judge, arraigned Petitioner, he had "intimate knowledge" of Petitioner's 

case. Petitioner contends his appellate counsel should have argued that recusal of the trial 

judge was required because of Petitioner's "verbal altercation" with the trial judge on March 31, 

2005 and the trial judge's "improper testifying from the bench" during the hearing on the Motion 

for Recusal. This Court agrees with the Commonwealth, the only reference for the alleged verbal 

altercation is "NT; 5/3/06, pg. 8." The record reflects no verbal altercation between the trial court 

and Petitioner. 

This Court believes Petitioner is referring to his bail hearing which would have occurred 

on or about March 31,2005. However, this issue has been argued by Petitioner's counsel. At 

the May 3, 2006, hearing on the Motion for Recusal, Petitioner's counsel argued the trial judge 

3 
Circulated 11/26/2014 02:49 PM

should recuse because statements were made at the bail hearing that Petitioner's drug-related 

conduct resulted in two (2) deaths and because Petitioner owned properties, bail should be set 

high. Tr. Motion for Recusal, 5/3/06, pp. 1-8. This Court did not recall these statements although 

it recognizes the information was most likely proffered. Tr. Motion for Recusal, 5/3/06, pp. 1-8. 

However, after careful self-assessment, this Court determined it was able to fairly and impartially 

apply the law in this case. This issue was developed and argued by Petitioner's counsel. The 

arguments appear on the record. Furthermore, this issue was raised on direct appeal and the 

Pennsylvania Superior Court found no abuse of discretion and noted this Court's lack of bias 

was supported by the record. Moreover, review of the record does not reflect any "improper 

testimony from the Court" at the hearing on the Motion for Recusal. See Tr. Motion for Recusal, 

5/3/06. 

In PCRA claim 4, Petitioner alleged his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request 

the trial judge recuse himself from the hearing that was conducted on the Motion for Recusal. 

As the Commonwealth correctly notes, a motion to recuse is first properly addressed to the 

judge whose recusal is sought. Commonwealth v. Whitmore, 912 A.2d 827, 833 (Pa. 2006). 

Furthermore, a judge whose recusal is sought is not required to turn the matter over to a 

different judge for disposition. See id. at 832-33 citing Reilly v. Southwest Pa. Trans. Auth., 507 

Pa. 204, 489 A.2d 1291 (Pa. 1985). 

In PCRA claim 5, Petitioner alleged his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to 

and challenge the propriety of the jury instruction given on entrapment. The parties do not 

dispute that the trial court re-read the initial instruction regarding entrapment after the jurors 

asked for clarification. The parties do not dispute the trial court inquired following the third 

instruction whether any juror still needed clarification. A trial court is permitted to respond by 

recharging the jury on the point in question by reading a standard jury instruction. See 

Commonwealth v. Faulker, 528 Pa. 57, 595 A.2d 29 (1991), Commonwealth v. Davalos, 779 

4 
Circulated 11/26/2014 02:49 PM

A.2d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2001). Petitioner does not argue this Court issued an incorrect statement 

of the law regarding entrapment. It is not improper to inquire whether jurors need clarification 

following answering a question of the jury. See Davalos, 779 A.2d 1190. 

Regarding PCRA claim 6, Petitioner alleged his trial counsel failed to develop the 

entrapment defense. Petitioner averred his "entire defense was entrapment and proving the 

'Government Outrageousness' that constituted entrapment." Motion for Post Conviction 

Collateral Relief, 3/27/2009, p. IV. Petitioner argued the Commonwealth committed entrapment 

through its use of the confidential informant, Kenyon Ebeling, to arrange controlled buys. 

Petitioner and Ms. Ebeling were involved romantically and have a son together. Petitioner 

complained his counsel failed to (a.) effectively argue that the confidential informant's conduct 

constituted entrapment; (b.) cite to portions of the record in support of the entrapment argument 

contained in his brief; (c.) argue that confidential informant's drug trafficking is the type of 

conduct the entrapment statute is designed to prevent; and, (d.) raise the fact that the 

confidential informant committed "gross misconduct" by providing two firearms to Petitioner 

despite her knowledge that he was convicted a felon and under criminal investigation. 

Petitioner's argument that his counsel failed to effectively argue that Ms. Ebeling's 

conduct constituted entrapment amounts to nothing more than a complaint his counsel did not 

succeed. This Court agrees with the Commonwealth; failure to succeed does not establish that 

counsel's performance was unreasonable or constitutionally defective. Commonwealth v. 

Ligons, 971 A.2d 1125, 1155 (Pa. 2009). Petitioner's second argument is that his counsel failed 

to cite the record in support of his argument. Petitioner is referring to the Superior Court Opinion 

filed on March 10, 2008. On page ten (10) of the Opinion, the Superior Court notes that 

Petitioner failed to provide citations on the record in support of his attack on Ms. Ebeling's 

credibility and allegations that she "engaged in significant drug trafficking." However, Petitioner 

provides no citations to the record in support of his allegations that she "engaged in significant 

5 
Circulated 11/26/2014 02:49 PM

drug trafficking." Petitioner cited the record where Ms. Ebeling admitted to using and overdosing 

on drugs and "aiding in the selling of drugs." However, Petitioner does not cite any portions of 

the record regarding Ms. Ebeling being engaged in significant drug trafficking. This Court is not 

aware of any such evidence on the record. 

Petitioner's third argument is that his counsel failed to argue Ms. Ebeling's drug 

trafficking is the type of conduct the entrapment statute is designed to prevent. However, 

Petitioner's counsel did make this argument. See Defendant's Brief on Appeal to the 

Pennsyvlanaia Superior Court, p. 69-72. Regarding Petitioner's fourth argument that his counsel 

failed to raise the fact that Ms. Ebeling committed "gross misconduct" in providing two (2) guns 

to Petitioner who was a convicted felon under investigation, this issue is not relevant to 

Petitioner's entrapment defense. See Commonwealth v. Clark, 683 A.2d 901 (Pa. Super. 1996). 

In PCRA claim 9, Petitioner claimed his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to litigate 

prosecutorial misconduct in connection with perjured testimony during the relevant grand jury 

proceedings. This issue has been raised at the trial court and appellate stages by Petitioner. As 

the Commonwealth notes, the Superior Court affirmed this Court's determination that alleged 

irregularities in the grand jury proceeding would not be litigated and the Commonwealth's trial 

witnesses could be cross-examined at trial regarding prior inconsistent statements. Furthermore, 

as the Commonwealth has argued, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 4551 et. seq., the supervising 

judge appointed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to preside over the grand jury determined 

the sufficiency of a presentment. Judge Feudale, Supervising Judge of the Twenty-first 

Statewide Investigating Grand Jury has already reviewed Presentment No. 66 and determined it 

to be in accord with the law and accepted pursuant to the Investigating Grand Jury Act. See id. 

For the above reasons, this Court determines PCRA claims 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9 should be 

dismissed without hearing. Petitioner has failed to prove that his counsel's performance was 

deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced his defense. See Commonwealth v. 

6 
Circulated 11/26/2014 02:49 PM

Reaves, 923 A.2d 1119 (Pa. 2007). In each of these claims, there are no issues concerning any 

material fact, Petitioner is not entitled to relief as a matter of law and, no purpose would be 

served in conducting further proceedings. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(1); Commonwealth v. Morrison, 

878 A.2d 102 (Pa.Super. 2005). 

In PCRA claim 13, Petitioner alleged the Commonwealth engaged in prosecutorial 

misconduct in connection with the testimony of Sarah Voita. Specifically, Petitioner claims 

"[c]ounsel agreed with the prosecution instead of arguing in defendant's favor, that the stratergy 

[sic] of the prosecutor in offering Ms. Voita immunity to testify for the state, then holding a side 

bar with Ms. Voita's counsel about her pleading the 5th when called by the defense, went to the 

heart of the misconduct of the prosecutor." Motion for Post Conviction Collateral Relief, 

3/27/2009, p. X. Petitioner did not raise this issue on direct appeal. Issues of trial court error and 

prosecutorial misconduct that are not raised on direct appeal are waived for purposes of a 

PCRA petition. Commonwealth v. Rollins, 738 A.2d 435 (Pa. 1999). Therefore, this issue 

involving the prosecutor's alleged misconduct for its refusal to grant immunity has been waived 

because it was not raised on direct appeal. Id., 42 Pa.C.S.A.§ 9544(b), 

Accordingly, the following Order is entered: 

7 
Circulated 11/26/2014 02:49 PM

ORDER OF COURT 

th 

AND NOW, this I:) day of March, 2010, upon consideration of the Commonwealth's 

Motion to Dismiss PCRA Claims and Motion for Disposition of the Motion to Dismiss PCRA 

claims, having received no response from Defendant pursuant to the Order on October 23, 

2009, said Motion to Dismiss PCRA Claims is hereby GRANTED and claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 13 

are DISMISSED from the amended PCRA Petition. 

Bradley P. Lunsford, Judge 

8 
Circulated 11/26/2014 02:49 PM

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CENTRE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 

CRIMINAL DIVISION 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Respondent 

vs. 

TAJI J. LEE, 

Petitioner 

Attorney for Commonwealth: 

Attorney for Defendant: 

Lunsford, J. 

NO. 2005-793 

NO. 2005-333 

NO. 2005-334 

NO. 2005-335 

NO. 2005-336 

William R. Stoycos, Esq. 

pro se 

r--.3 

-C-.1 c:;:, 

."j~-~r-f ..!;-

; -. -:": :""-j -" 

::-: .. ·~._-:-,Ci M . , . co 

·l::-::". N .... -_.: ( .~~ ~-.", 

u OPINION REGARDING MATTERS COMPLAINED a= ON APPEAL,:" :z; 

S'? 

c.n 

BACKGROUND ()!'\ 

On May 25, 2006, Taji J. Lee, Petitioner, was convicted of twenty-six (26) counts of drug 

related offenses. On July 16, 2006, he was sentenced in accordance with the applicable mandatory 

minimum sentences and standard range sentencing guidelines. He was ordered to serve the 

sentences consecutively, for an aggregate sentence of thirty (30) to sixty (60) years. On July 7, 

10 0 RD 0 S 

'J 
Circulated 11/26/2014 02:49 PM

2006, Petitioner filed Post Sentence Motions. On November 7, 2006, he filed Supplemental Post 

Sentence Motions. On November 22, 2006, this Court issued an Order denying the Post Sentence 

Motions. On December 7, 2006, Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal to the Superior Court of 

Pennsylvania. On January 16, 2009, lhe judgment of sentence was affirmed by the Superior Court 

of Pennsylvania. On the same day, a Petition for Allowance of Appeal was denied by the Sup-eme 

Court of Pennsylvania. 

Moving on to the PCRA phase, On March 27, 2009, Petitioner filed a pro se PCRA 

Petition. Counsel was appointed for Petitioner. On May 27, 2009, Petitioner filed a counseled 

Amended PCRA Petition raising thirteen (13) grounds for relief. On September 16, 2009, the 

Commonwealth filed a Brief in Response to Defendant's Amended Counseled PCRA claims. On 

October 15, 2009, the Commonwealth filed a Motion to Dismisswithout Evidentiary Hearing .' 

specifically seeking dismissal of claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 13. On October 23, 2009, this Court 

entered an Order requiring Petitioner to file a response to the Motion to Dismiss. On November 13, 

2009, counsel for Petitioner requested (via e-mail) a ten (10) day extension to file a response 

which this Court granted. No further extensions were requested. On February 10, 2010, the 

Commonwealth filed a Motion for Dispostion of the Motion to Dismiss. The Court dismissed PCRA 

2 
Circulated 11/26/2014 02:49 PM

claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 13 via Opinion and Order entered on March 12, 2010. 

Upon thorough review and consideration of the remaining PCRA claims)and following the 

ph 

evidentiary hearingvJanuary 31, 2012, this Court dismissed the remaining PCRA claims: 1, 2, 7, 8, 

10, 11 and 12 via Order entered on April 23, 2012. The record remained open for thirty (30) days 

following the evidentiary hearing per the Commonwealth's request so that the Commonwealth could 

potentially supplement the evidence with the testimony of Assistant Attorney General, David Gorman; 

and counsel for Petitioner's request that she be permitted some time to attempt to locate Kenyon 

Ebeling and potentially call her as a Witness. Tr. 1/31/12 pp. 201-202. However, the record was 

never supplemented after more than thirty (30) days had passed. Petitioner claims he did not 

receive a copy of this Court's Order entered on April 23, 2012 dismissing the remaining claims, 

despite the Centre County Prothonotary having mailed the S3me. He also contends his courtappointed counsel did not notify him of the entry of the Order. Only through lis own efforts in 

contacting the Centre County Prothonotary did he learn of the Courts Order. He further complains 

that despite his wishes, his court appointed-counsel did not appeal and any appeal he could have 

filed after learning of the decision would have been untimely. 

On August 10, 2012, Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal to the Superior Court from the April 

3 
Circulated 11/26/2014 02:49 PM

23, 2012 Order dismissing his remaining PCRA claims. On September 26, 2012, the Superior 

Court quashed the appeal as untimely. The Supreme Court denied Lee's Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal on April 8, 2013. 

On January 17,2013, Petitioner filed a second PCRA Petition. On July 12,2013, the 

Commonwealth filed a Motion to Dismiss Pro Se Second PCRA Petition for Lack of Jurisdiction and 

corresponding brief. On August 7, 2013, Petitioner filed a Response to the CommonwealtHs Motion 

to Dismiss. On October 28, 2013, this Court reinstated Petitionefs PCRA rights following an 

-to 

'/ evidentiary hearing on October 18, 2013. Petitioner had thirty (30) days to appeal the Superior 

Courtland on November 6, 2013, Petitioner filed a timely Notice of Appeal to the Superior Court 

presently before the court. In his Notice of Appeal, Petitioner raises ten (10) issues which are 

largely repetitive of the issues raised in his Amended PCRA. 

This Opinion will address this Court's reasoning for dismissing the remaining claims from 

the Amended PCRA following evidentiary hearing on January 31, 2012. As discussed above, many 

claims were dismissed without hearing in the Opinion and Order entered on March 12, 2010 and 

this Court relies on that Opinion regarding those claims. 

The claims remaining from Petitioner's Amended PCRA Petition involving ineffective 

4 
Circulated 11/26/2014 02:49 PM

assistance of counsel following the Opinion and Order entered on March 12, 2010 were as follows: 

Issue 1: failure to strike Juror Baney for cause; 

Issue 2: failure to litigate the issue of a biased juror on direct 

appeal; 

Issue 7: failure to object to testimony of Kenyon Ebeling because it 

constituted perjury: 

Issue 8: failure to argue on appeal that Kenyon Ebeling committed 

perjury at trial; 

Issue 10: failing to litigate the issue of prosecutorial misconduct in 

the Assistant Attorney General withholding discovery documents: 

Issue 11: adVising Defendant to waive the right to teS:ify at trial; and 

Issue 12: failing to correct "statements" made by trial court and 

Superior Court that the confidential informant was not involved in any 

drug deliveries for which Defendant was convicted 

DISCUSSION 

Petitioner argues ineffective assistance of counsel. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has 

set forth the following test for ineffectiveness of counsel: 

[t]he constitutional ineffectiveness standard requires the defendant to 

rebut the presumption of professional competence by demonstrating 

that (1.) his underlying claim is of arguable merit: (2.) the particular 

course of conduct pursued by counsel did not have some reasonable 

basis designed to effectuate his interests: and (3.) but for counsefs 

ineffectiveness, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of 

the proceedings would have been different. A failure to satisfy any 

prong of the test for ineffectiveness will require rejection of the claim. 

Commonwealth v. Reeves, 923 A.2d 1119,1127 (Pa. 2007). To make a successful claim of 

5 
Circulated 11/26/2014 02:49 PM

ineffective counsel, a defendant must plead and prove that his counsefs performance was deficient 

and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. Reaves, 923 A.2d at 1127 citing 

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). When assessing an attoney's performance the 

court must look "both to the arguable merit of the claim lodged against counsel as well as the 

objective reasonableness of the path taken, or not taken by counsel?' Reaves, 923 A.2d at 1127. 

When evaluating prejudice, a court must ask whether the defendant has proven that "there is a 

reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding 

would have been different." Id. 

Regarding Issue 1, Petitioner claims that his counsel was ineffective fa- failing to strike a 

juror, "Juror Baney," for cause. During the trial, Juror Baney expressed to the Court that his father 

worked at the Centre County Correctional Facility and indicated this made him nervous. Tr. 

5/23/06, pp. 347-349. Trial counsel testified that he could not have struck Juror Baney for cause 

during jury selection because he did not bring up the fact that his father worked at the correctional 

facility until the trial. Tr. 1/31/12, p. 86; Tr. 5/23/06, p. 347. There were a few discussions 

between the attorneys and trial judge regarding Juror Baney on the record. Juror Baney brought up 

ed 

the fact that his father worle=g at the correctional facility. Tr. 5/23/06, pp. 346-352. He was 

6 
Circulated 11/26/2014 02:49 PM

asked questions to determine if he saw Petitioner leaving the courthouse handcuffed because 

Petitioner thought he did and expressed concern that it could prejudice the juror. Tr. 5/23/06, pp. 

335, 345-346. However, Juror Baney indicated that he saw Mr. Lee leaving the courthouse but 

described him as free. ld. Juror Baney also advised the trial judge that he inadvertently heard of a 

news story raising whether Petitioner had any connection to the disappearance of Ray Gricar, 

former District Attorney. Tr. 5/23/06. 491-494. The juror was questioned regarding his ability to 

keep an open mind and be fair and impartial and advised that he must advise the trial judge if he 

was unable to be fair and impartial. The trial judge reserved the decision concerning Juror Baney 

remaining on the jury panel until the end of the trial.Tr. 5/23/06, p. 352. Ultimately, trial counsel 

for Petitioner advised the Assistant Attorney General and trial judge on the record that Petitioner 

decided to keep the Juror Baney on the jury. Tr. 5/25/06, pp. 1269-1272. This Court dismissed 

this claim because the record reflects that trial counsel gave meaningful attention and consideration 

to this issue and Petitioner was responsible for the decision to keep Juror Baneyon the jury. 

In Issue 2, Petitioner claims his counsel was ineffective for failing to litigate the issue of 

Juror Baney being biased on appeal. As discussed above, Petitioner choose to have Juror Baney 

remain; to later claim on direct appeal that he was biased would not have been a successful 

7 
Circulated 11/26/2014 02:49 PM

argument as expressed by appeal counsel. Tr. 1/31/12, p. 16. His trial attorney indicated that 

since it was Petitioner's desire that Mr. Baney remain on the jury he did not raise it on appeal 

because he felt it was a non-issue from a practical standpoint. Tr. 1/31/06, p. 16. Furthermore, 

there is always the consideration that counsel must focus the appeal issues to the key issues most 

likely to succeed before the appellate court. Petitioner's appeal counsel raised seven (7) issues 

and indicated that he was well aware that raising more issues would have be81 detrimental to the 

success of the appeal Tr. 1/31/12, pp. 29-30. This Court dismissed this claim because counsel on 

appeal had a reasonable basis for his course of action and agrees raising this issue on appeal 

would have been quite unlikely to have produced a different outcome. 

In Issue 7, Petitioner complains counsel failed to object to the testimony of Kenyon Ebeling 

because it constituted perjury. Trial counsel discussed at length his thoughts concerning Ms. 

Ebeling's testimony at the evidentiary hearing on January 31, 2012. He had expressed to Petitioner 

that there is a significant difference between inconsistent statements and perjury. Tr. 1/31/12, pp. 

91-92. Trial counsel impeached Ms. Ebeling with prior inconsistent statements from her grand jUly 

testimony. Tr. 1131/12, pp. 23-24. There was not, however, basis to object to Ms. Ebeling's 

testimony as perjured during the trial. Tr. 1/31/12, p. 92. However, the inconsistencies were 

8 
Circulated 11/26/2014 02:49 PM

relatively inconsequential. Tr. 1/31/12, p. 24. Trial counsel did attempt to attack Ms. Ebeling's 

testimony of the grand jury as perjurious in a pre-trial motion. Tr. 1/31/12, pp. 88-89. He agreed 

that he attempted to "hammer" her on cross-examination and tried to point out those inconsistent 

statements through the grand jury transcript and other sta1ements she made to police. Tr. 1/31/12, 

pp. 89-90. Trial Counsel testified that he addJessed any inconsistencies to Ms. Ebeling which he 

felt were substantive. Tr. 1/31/12, p. 90. He did explain to Petitioner that inaccuracies are not 

equivalent to perjury and certain elements must be met to establish perjury. Tr. 1/31/12, p. 25. 

With regard to Issue 8, failing to argue on appeal that Kenyon Ebelingcommitted perjury at 

trial, this issue was not raised on appeal,although counsel testified he certainly would have raised it 

if he could "establish without equivocation that she lied or that she perjured herself at the grand 

jury." Tr. 1/31/12, p. 29. Counsel felt there was no merit to the issue and felt that there were 

other issues raised which were more likely to result in a successful appeal Tr. 1/31/12, p. 29-39. 

Counsel further testified he was "dangerously close with the Superior Court on the number of 

issues we were raising." Id. Petitioner's counsel expressed his reasoning and strategy in dealing 

with Ms. Ebeling's inconsistent statements and what actions he took to bring these issues to the 

attention of the jury. His expanation certainly demonstrated sound legal reasoning in his approach 

9 
Circulated 11/26/2014 02:49 PM

that this Court cannot question. Therefore, this Court dismissed Petitioner's claim's concerning 

Kenyon's Ebeling's alleged perjury at Issues 7 and 8. 

Petitioner argues at Issue 10 that counsel was ineffective for failing to litigate prosecutorial 

misconduct of the Attorney Generars office in withholding discovery documents. Trial counsel statoo 

that he received a voluminous amount of discovery from theAttorney General's office. Tr. 1/31/12, 

p. 80. He also received transcripts from the grand jury. Tr. 1/31/12, p. 80. He received a copy of 

a report or a "debriefing" of Kenyon Ebeling. Tr. 1/31/12 pp. 81-83. Furthermore, he received 

criminal histories relating to various co-defendants and witness and used the information on crossexamination of at least one witness, Joseph McLaughlin. Tr. 1/311 12, p. 83. Trial counsel could 

never know if there was a specific document he did not receive but he was not aware of any 

document having existed that he did not receive. 

Specifically, Petitioner seems to focus on a 2002 debriefing or report which he contends he 

never received through discovery, There was a sidebar at the first day of the trial regarding a 2002 

debriefing or report which the Assistant Attorney General advised did not exist Tr. 5/22/06, pp. 

70-76. He stated when he referenced informaton from 2002, he was referring to a "collection" of 

information law enforcement received that Petitioner was moving drugs in the region as early as 

10 
Circulated 11/26/2014 02:49 PM

2002. Tr. 5/22/06, pp. 70-76. He further advised he would check over the lunch break/and if 

any additional information existed/it would be copied and provided after the break. !Q. Agent Scott 

Merrill testified that there was no 2002 debriefing or report because he became involved with the 

case in 2004 when Kenyon Ebeling reported a theft to the State college pdlice. Tr. 1/31/12, pp. 

193-193. Agent Merril further testified that some information was presented to the grand jury 

concerning events as early as 2002) but none of this information was presented to him until 2004; 

and no report would have been prepared prior to 2004. Tr. 1/31/12, p. 194. Agent Merrill was not 

aware of any exculpatory evidence prior to the initiation of the investgation in 2004. Tr. 1/31/12, p 

195. This Court is convinced that no report dating back to 2002 existed/and has no reason to 

believe that trial counsel was denied any discoverable materials; therefore, this Court dismissed 

Issue 10 of the Amended PCRA Petition. 

Regarding Issue 11, Petitioner complains that he was advised to waive his right to testify. 

Trial counsel testified that if he was to have put Petitioner on the stand he would have either 

admitted to the deliveries to Kenyon Ebeling for which he was ultimately acquitted or, testify that he 

never delivered heroin which would have created an ethical dilemma or attorney-client privilege 

issue. Tr. 1/31/12, pp. 211-212. Trial counsel further testified that he would have said something to 

11 
Circulated 11/26/2014 02:49 PM

Petitioner such as, he could not put him on the stand unless he denied making deliveries that he 

had admitted to and he could not suborn perjury. Tr. 1/31/12, p. 213. Trial counsel would have 

never told him that he could not testify based on prior bad acts and if Petitioner thought so, he 

misunderstood. Tr. 1/31/12, p. 42. Trial counsel further testified that he has never told any client 

that he does not have a legal right to testify. Tr. 1/31/12, at 43. Based on the testimony of trial 

counsel concerning the decisions made regarding Petitioner's waiver of his right to testify, this Court 

dismissed Issue 11 raised in the Amended PCRA Petition because nis Court believes Petitioner 

made this decision with the advice of counsel bLt was never told that he had no right to testify or 

could not. 

Regarding Issue 12, Petitioner contends his counsel was ineffective on appeal for failing to 

correct the statement made by the trial court and Superior Court (at p. 11 of the Opinion filed on 

March 10, 2008) that the confidential informant Kenyon Ebeling, was not involved in any drug 

deliveries at issue in this case. Petitioner contends because Ms. Ebeling was physically present at 

the incidents on October 27, 2004 and November 2, 2004, the Opinions of the trial court and 

Honorable Superior Court were incorrect. He further argues that he did not meet Agent Merril until 

November 24, 2004. On November 24, 2004, Mr. LEe got into the vehicle with Ms. Ebeling and 

12 
Circulated 11/26/2014 02:49 PM

Agent Merril and handed the drugs to Ms. Ebeling as witnessed by Agent Merril and described in 

further detail below. However, Ms. Ebeling's testimony was not crucial to the Commonwealth's case 

as there were consensual recordings of phone calls) and Agent Merril was in the vehicle with Ms. 

Ebeling and present for the deliveries as explained below. Therefore, the misstatements Petitioner 

refers to are inconsequential. Although Kenyon Ebeling was part of the deliveries on October 27, 

2004 and November 2, 2004, there was plenty of other corroborating evidence to support the 

convictions for the deliveries on October 27, 2004, November 2, 2004 and November 24, 2004. 

Ms. Ebeling was only very tangentially involved in the other deliveries which resulted in convictions 

which are discussed below. In essence, the jury need not have relied on anything Ms. Ebeling 

testified to regarding the deliveries of which Petitioner was convicteq therefore, this Court dismissed 

Issue 12 of the Amended PCRA Petition 

Agent Merril testified regarding the October 27, 2004 delivery at pages 120-13 2 on day 1 

) 

of the jury trial on May 22, 2006. .. Kenyon Ebeling telephoned Petitioner to arrange the purchase of 

\tJ'-'-S 

cocaine for Agent Merrill. That telephone cal}s'·were recorded. Ms. Ebeling was advised to go to 

Taco Bell,and when she and Agent Merrill arrived, they met Jena Reeves. Ms Ebeling approached 

Ms. Reeves' vehicle, got in to Ms. Reeve's vehicle, exited and returned to Agent Merril's vehicle 

13 
Circulated 11/26/2014 02:49 PM

and handed him two eighth ounces of cocaine. Tr. 5/22/06, p. 132 

Agent Merrill testified regarding the November 2, 2004 delivery , at pages 143-151 on day 1 

of the trial on May 22, 2006. Kenyon Ebeling set up the purchase of heroin in recorded telephone 

conversations with Petitioner. Petitioner advised her to meet him at an apartment on Waupelani 

Drive. Agent Merril drove Ms. Ebelirg in his vehicle. Ms. Ebeling exited the vehicle and walked up 

to Petitioner, went inside the building with Petitioner, and then returned to Agent Merril's vehicle 

and presented him with packets of heroin. 

Regarding November 24, 2004, Agent Merrill testified at pages 172-180 of the transcript on 

day 1 of the trial on May 22, 2006. Petitioner got into a vehicle with Kenyon Ebeling and Agent 

Merrill and they drove to South Gate and Waupaani Drive. Petitioner went inside an apartment and 

appeared from the apartment with bags of illicit drugs which he handed to Kenyon Ebeling who 

then handed the bags to Agent Merril. Agent Merril gave Mr. Lee the money for the drugs. 

Regarding the delivery on December 3, 2004, Agent Merrill testified at pages 354-366 of 

the transcript from day 1 of the jury trial on May 22, 2006 that he contacted Petitioner by phone to 

arrange the purchase of cocaine and made arrangements to pay money owed for fronted heroir¢'. 

They arranged to meet at Radio Shack on North Atherton Street. Petitioner then advised Agent 

14 
Circulated 11/26/2014 02:49 PM

Merril to go to the pool area of a nearby apcrtment complex. At the apartment complex, Agent 

Merril met Petitiooer at Building KJwhere Petitioner pointed him to a McDonald's Chicken McNugget 

box which contained one half ounce of cocaine. 

Concerning the delivery on December 30, 2004, Agent Merrill testified) on day 1 of the trial 

on May 22, 2004 at pages 374-380 and 385-387 of the transcript)that he spoke to Petitioner on 

the phone and requested heroin" Petitioner advised him to go to the pool area of the apartment 

complex where they had previously met. He then advised Pgent Merril to go to BLilding J. 

Petitioner met Agent Merrill and pointed out a cigarette pack which contained baggies of heroin and 

cocaine. 

Agent Merril testified/on day 1 of the trial on May 24 2004 at pages 397-411 of the 

transcript/that he had phone conversations with Petitioner starting on January 4, 2005, regarding 

purchasing a large quantity of heroirf On January 11, 2005, Agent Merrill spoke with Petitioner on 

the phone to arrange a meeting. He was instructed to go to a laundromat near College Avenue. 

When he went inside, a woman, Michelle Sopp, asked him if he was there to see Mr. Lee, he 

responded in the affirmative and she told him "it" was in the second washing machine. Agent Merril 

located the machine and found a blue bag which contained bags of heroin. Petitioner was arrested 

15 
Circulated 11/26/2014 02:49 PM

,-

on this day. 

Based on the facts of all of the deliveries which resulted in convictions, there was ample 

evidence independent of any testimony of Kenyon Ebeling supporting the jurjs convictions. 

Therefore, any misstatements by this Court or the Honorable Superior Court are inconsequential. 

For these reasons this Court denied the claims in the Amended PCRA Petition in entirety. 

This Court hopes this Opinion aids the Honorable Superior Court in this matter. 

BY THE COURT: 

Date: '2 ['"L O \ ll..1 

Bradley P. Lunsford, Judge 

16