J

- A26011

- 20

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

v.

VINCENT HARRIS

Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1512 EDA 2019 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered April 22, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 51

- CR

- 0006880

- 2013

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. * MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED JANUARY 12, 2021 Appellant, Vincent Harris, appeals from the post

- conviction court’s April 22, 2019 order denying his timely

- filed petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa. C.S. §§ 9541

- 9542. After careful review, we affirm. The PCRA court provided a detailed summar y of the facts and procedural history of this case in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, which we adopt herein.
See PCRA Court Opinion (PCO), 11/1/19, at 2

- 5. We o nly briefly note that Appellant was convicted of first

- degree murder and related offenses on March 27, 2015. He was sentenced that same day to an aggregate term of life imprisonment, without the possibility of parole. He filed a timely direct appeal, and after we affirmed his judgment of sentence, our Supreme Court denied his petition for allowance of appeal. Commonwealth v. Harris , 158 A.3d

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.J

- A26011

- 20

- 2

-

192 (Pa. Super. 2016) (unpublished memorandum), appeal denied , 166 A.3d 1210 (Pa. 2017). Appellant thereafter fil ed a timely, pro se PCRA petition . Counsel was appointed and filed an amended petition, claiming that Appellant’s trial counsel acted ineffectively by not objecting to certain testimony by a Commonwealth witness. According to Appellant, the at

- issue test imony indicated that an eyewitness to the murder, Duron Flynn, was not present to testify at trial because he was afraid of retaliation. Appellant asserted that his counsel should have objected to this testimony because it improperly suggested to the jury that Appellant had threatened Flynn, when there was no evidence that he had done so. On March 19, 2019, the PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of its intent to dismiss Appellant’s petition without a hearing. He did not respond, and on April 22 , 2019, the court dismissed his petition. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. The court did not order him to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. The court filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion on November 1, 201 9. Herein, Appellant states one issue for our review: I. Did the [t]rial/PCRA [c]ourt err in dismissing the PCRA [petition], without a hearing, even though Appellant pled that he was victimized by ineffective assistance of counsel who failed to object to the jury[’s] being told by the [p]rosecutor that a witness failed to appear[] because the witness feared for his safety? Appellant’s Brief at 3.J

- A26011

- 20

- 3

-

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 stated that: [A] PCRA petitioner will be granted r elief 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 re liable adjudication of guilt or inno cence could have taken place.” Generally, counsel’s performance is presumed to be constitutionally adequate, and counsel will only be deemed ineffective upon a sufficient showing by the petitioner. To obtain relief, a petitioner must demonstrate that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced the petitioner. A petitioner establishes prejudice when he demonstrates “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” ... [A] properly pled claim of ineffectiveness posits that: (1) the underlying legal issue has arguable merit; (2) counsel’s actions lacked an objective reasonable basis; and (3) actual prejudi ce befell the petitioner from counsel’s act or omission. Commonwealth v. Johnson , 966 A.2d 523, 532

- 33 (Pa. 2009) (citations omitted). In this case, w e have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law. Additionally , we have reviewed the thorough and well

- crafted opinion of the Honorable Genece Brinkley of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. We conclude that Judge Brinkley’sJ

- A26011

- 20

- 4

-

extensive, well

- reasoned opinion accurately disposes of the issue presented by Appel lant. Accordingly, we adopt her opinion as our own and affirm the order denying Appellant’s PCRA petition for the reasons set forth therein.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 1/12/2021Circulated 12/18/2020 12:35 PM