J-S26019-20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

EUGENE M. PRATT 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1351 WDA 2019

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 15, 2019

In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-26-CR-0001261-2014

BEFORE: MURRAY, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 17, 2020

Eugene Pratt appeals from the order denying his petition filed under the 

Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA). See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. Pratt 

claims his trial counsel was ineffective due to her failure to call two witnesses. 

We affirm. 

Pratt was arrested on in July 2014 for charges relating to an incident 

involving two victims, Ashley Weakland and Tyler Rockwell, at the home of 

Pratt’s cousin, Deb Call. N.T., 3/9/16, at 15, 30. Pratt arrived looking for 

Weakland, claiming that she had stolen his cell phone. Id. at 16, 32. Weakland 

testified that Pratt cornered her in the bathroom and held a knife against her 

neck while demanding the cell phone, which Weakland said did not belong to 

Pratt, but rather to Weakland. Id. at 32-36. Weakland testified that as she 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S26019-20

- 2 -

reached for the cell phone, Pratt cut her hand with the knife, causing her to 

drop the cell phone. Id. at 36. Rockwell went into the bathroom to intervene, 

and Pratt turned on Rockwell and held the knife to Rockwell’s throat and

threatened to cut him, stating, “[S]hut up boy I’ll slice you too.” Id. at 19. 

Pratt then grabbed the cell phone, exited the house, and drove away in a 

vehicle. Id. at 21, 38. 

Pratt testified in his own defense and said that Weakland had taken 

Pratt’s vehicle and rented it to another woman. Id. at 85, 88. Pratt said that 

when he got the vehicle back, several of his belongings were missing, 

including his cell phone. Id. at 88. Pratt also testified that there was no cutting 

or threatening. Id. at 90-91. He claims he forced his way into the bathroom, 

grabbed the cell phone, and left the home. Id. at 90.

Following trial, a jury convicted Pratt of Terroristic Threats and Simple 

Assault, and the trial court, sitting without a jury, found him guilty of the 

summary offense of Harassment.1 The court sentenced Pratt in March 2016 to 

an aggregate term of 33 to 90 months’ imprisonment. This Court affirmed the 

judgment of sentence in April 2018. 

In December 2018, Pratt filed a pro se PCRA petition, claiming his trial 

counsel was ineffective. After the court appointed counsel, Pratt filed an 

amended petition claiming his counsel was ineffective for failing to call two 

witnesses, Deb Call and Bernard Richardson.

____________________________________________

1

 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2706, 2701, and 2709, respectively. 
J-S26019-20

- 3 -

The PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing, at which both Pratt and trial 

counsel testified. According to Pratt, Deb Call would have testified that the 

attack did not occur, and Richardson would have testified that he saw 

Weakland with Pratt’s phone and truck. N.T., 6/7/19, 6-7. Pratt said that he 

informed counsel of the witnesses and that he believed such testimony would 

have proven his innocence. Id. at 7-8.

Counsel also testified. She said she met with Pratt repeatedly and knew 

that Pratt wanted to subpoena Call to testify because she could potentially 

provide exculpatory evidence. Id. at 18. Counsel said that she spoke with Call, 

who reported that she did not witness the incident. Id. at 18-19. Counsel said 

she consulted Pratt on this matter, and they reached a joint decision not to 

have Call testify. Id. at 21. She further testified that Pratt never asked her to 

contact Richardson and did not provide her with Richardson’s contact 

information. Id. at 21-22. Counsel knew of Richardson but did not seek 

testimony from him because even if he said he saw Weakland with Pratt’s 

phone and truck, that would not have exculpated Pratt from the charges 

relating to the attacks. Id. Neither Richardson nor Call testified at the hearing, 

and Pratt did not provide a certification or affidavit from either of them setting 

forth their testimony or stating that they were willing and available to testify 

for Pratt.

The PCRA court found trial counsel’s testimony credible and denied 

relief. Pratt filed this timely appeal. He raises one issue on appeal: “whether 
J-S26019-20

- 4 -

the PCRA [c]ourt did err in not finding ineffective assistance of trial counsel.” 

Pratt’s Br. 5.

On appeal from the denial of PCRA relief, “we must determine whether 

the ruling of the PCRA court is supported by the record and is free of legal 

error.” Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18 A.3d 244, 259 (Pa. 2011). “The PCRA 

court’s credibility determinations, when supported by the record, are binding 

on this Court.” Id. “However, this Court applies a de novo standard of review 

to the PCRA court’s legal conclusions.” Id.

“Counsel is presumed to have been effective.” Commonwealth v. 

Andrews, 158 A.3d 1260, 1263 (Pa.Super. 2017). A petitioner claiming 

otherwise “must show that: (1) his underlying claim is of arguable merit; (2) 

counsel had no reasonable basis for his action or inaction; and (3) the 

petitioner suffered actual prejudice as a result.” Spotz, 84 A.3d at 311. Failure 

to satisfy any one prong of this test will result in denial of the claim. Id.

To establish counsel was ineffective for failing to call a witness, the 

petitioner must prove:

(1) the witness existed; (2) the witness was available to 

testify for the defense; (3) counsel knew of, or should have 

known of, the existence of the witness; (4) the witness was 

willing to testify for the defense; and (5) the absence of the 

testimony of the witness was so prejudicial as to have 

denied the defendant a fair trial.

Commonwealth v. Johnson, 966 A.2d 523, 536 (Pa. 2009) (quoting 

Commonwealth. v. Washington, 927 A.2d 586, 599 (Pa. 2007)). 
J-S26019-20

- 5 -

The PCRA court properly rejected Pratt’s ineffectiveness claim. Nothing 

in the record suggests either witness was willing and able to testify for the 

defense. Moreover, the PCRA court credited counsel’s testimony that Call did 

not see the incident and counsel and Pratt jointly agreed not to present Call’s

testimony, and that Richardson’s proposed testimony would not have 

exculpated Pratt. The PCRA court’s findings have ample support in the record 

and it did not err in denying Pratt’s petition. 

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 9/17/2020