J - S56023
- 15

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENN SYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee
v. YAQUAN GERALD WILLIAMS Appellant No. 796 MDA 2015 Appeal from the PCRA Order April 9 , 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Criminal Division at No(s): CP
- 36
- CR
- 0001092
- 2009
BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., JENKINS, J., and PLATT, J. * MEMORANDUM BY JENKINS, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 02, 2015 Yaquan Gerald Williams (“Appellant”), appeals from the order dismissing his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541
- 9546. After careful review, we affirm. On September 21, 2010, a jury found Appellant guilty of murder in the first degree, 1 firearms not to be carried without a license, 2 and delivery of a controlled substance
– cocaine. 3 On September 30, 2010, the trial court sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment for the murder conviction, and

____________________________________________
* Reti red Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1 18 Pa.C.S. § 2501(a).
2 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106(a)(1).
3 35 P.S. § 780
- 113(a)(30).J - S56023
- 15

- 2
-

consecutive sentences of 1 to 2 years’ incarceration for the firearms not to be carried without a license conviction and 2 to 4 years’ incarceration on the delivery of a controlled substance conviction. App ellant appealed. This Court affirmed the judgment of sentence on August 2, 2011, 4 and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied Appellant’s petition for allowance of appeal on January 19, 2012. On October 5, 2012, Appellant filed the instant timely PCRA p etition. The PCRA court held evidentiary hearings on August 12, 2014 and October 9, 2014, and denied the PCRA petition on April 9, 2015. Appellant timely appealed on May 7, 2015. Also on May 7, 2015, the PCRA court filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion that adopted the April 9, 2015 order as the court’s 1925(a) opinion. 5 Appellant raises the following issues for our review: 6 I. [Whether] Appellant was denied his rights under Article 1 § 9 [of] the Constitution of Pennsylvania and the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of America to effective assistance of counsel in that trial counsel failed to investigate, interview and call to testify at trial an eyewitness to the crime[?]

____________________________________________ 4 See Commonwealth v. Williams , 1664 MDA 2010, August 2, 2011 (unpublished memorandum).
5 The PCRA court did not order, and Appellant did not file, a statement of matters complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
6 We note that, with the exception of the additional seventh issue alleging Appellant was prejudiced by the cumulative effect of prior counsel’s ineffect iveness, these claims mirror exactly Appellant’s claims raised in his PCRA petition.J - S56023
- 15

- 3
-

II. [Whether c]ounsel was constitutionally ineffective under the Sixth Amendment for eliciting prejudicial testimony from a detective about the detective’s personal opinion of the truthfulness of another witness’ testimony. In that the detective[’]s opinion of the witness’ credibility supplanted the fact finder’s determination, [Appel lant’s] Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated[?] III. [Whether d]irect appeal[] counsel was constitutionally ineffective under the Sixth Amendment for raising a claim challenging the trial court’s denial of the motions to suppress and then failing to brief said issue, thereby waiving it[?] IV. [Whether c]ounsel was constitutionally ineffective under the Sixth Amendment for failing to preserve and properly argue a hearsay objection to testimony that Ms. Aguilera called people and told them that Ms. Joh nson was [a] snitch[?] V. [Whether c]ounsel was constitutionally ineffective under the Sixth Amendment for opening the door to prejudicial testimony from a Commonwealth witness[?] VI. [Whether c]ounsel was constitutionally ineffective under the Sixth Ame ndment for failing to object [to] questions to an eyewitness that confused and misle[]d the jury concerning the reliability of the witness’ identification of the perpetrator[?] VII. [Whether t]he [c]umulative [i]mpact of [c]ounsel’s ineffectiveness entitl es Appellant to relief[?] Appellant’s Brief, pp. 2
- 3. O ur standard of review from the denial of post
- conviction relief “is limited to examining whether the court’s determination is supported by the evidence of record and whether it is free of legal error.” Commonwealth v. Ousley , 21 A.3d 1238 (Pa.Super.2011) (citing Commonwealth v. Morales

, 701 A.2d 516, 520 (Pa.1997)). After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well
- reasoned opinion of the Honorable Dennis E.J - S56023
- 15

- 4 -

Reinaker, 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 and Order, dated April 9, 2015, pp. 2
- 13 (finding: (1) trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to call eyewitness where Appellant faile d to prove proposed witness’s willingness to testify at trial, or that absence of such testimony prejudiced Appellant where court found witness’s testimony at PCRA hearing incredible; (2) trial counsel was not ineffective for eliciting testimony from detec tive regarding his personal opinion as to truthfulness of another witness where detective commented on witness’s truthfulness at time of interview, not trial, trial counsel had strategic reason for not objecting to detective’s testimony, and trial court pr operly instructed jury regarding detective’s testimony; (3) appellate counsel was not ineffective for raising but failing to brief meritless suppression issue on direct appeal; (4) trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to alleged hearsay testimony where trial court had ruled pre - trial that testimony would be admissible; (5) trial counsel was not ineffective for opening door to prejudicial testimony of Commonwealth witness where questioning was strategically reasonable to support defense
co ntention police determined Appellant was the shooter and then attempted to garner evidence to support their theory of the crime; (6) trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to certain questions posed to eyewitness where counsel objected, tr ial court instructed prosecutor to rephrase question, prosecutor did rephrase question, and Appellant failed to proveJ - S56023
- 15

- 5 -

prejudice from counsel’s failure to further object). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the PCRA court’s opinion. Order affirmed. Jud ge Shogan joins in the memorandum. Judge Platt concurs in the result. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 11/2/2015/ Motion for Post-Conviction Collateral Relief will be Denied • .

. . , ' •• I • •

. '., ' • • I ) mislead the jury; and (6) Appellate Counsel was ineffective for waiving a claim that challenged

the; Trial Court's denial of a moti on to suppress

.. The Court finds that the Defendant's Amended -. I .I } Commonwealth's questioning during cross-examination ofan eyewitness that con:thsed and ) Trial Counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the \ .I of counsel when he opened the door to prejudicial testimony from a Commonwealth witness; (5) ) regarding what the victim told the detective; ( 4) his Trial Counsel provided ineffective asslstance /

. . I • \ / ineffective when he elicited testimo1,1y 

### from. a detective about the detective's personahJpiniop

-uf

the truthfulness of another witness' testimony; (3) his Trial Counsel provided ineffective · assistance of counsel when 

## hk. failed to raise a hearsay objection to the detective's testimony ) investigate; interview and call to testify 

## at trial an eyewitness to the crime; (2) Trial Counsel was

• • ~ • , . • · • • • ; I ' • , , ) ) ) ) Conviction Collateral Relief. The Defendant argues that he is entitled to post conviction relief ) on six grounds: (1) his Trial Counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to ) The Defendant, Yaquan Gerald Williams, has filed an Amended Motion for Post- ) ------ ---- -------· · · · ·· ·
. ) ) OPINION AND ORDER

BY: REINAKER, .T. April 9, 2015 ) COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

# ' f"-..) ):> c::::, ('") % en 

# ' c» ~ rn )> -0 ::t) (./) :::;:, ;:,; -l I ~ rn \.!) ;,., n -0 (") 0 :I: 0 c c :z: N ;:o 

### "'""' 

# .. -I 

### :< Ul (./)

~ N No. 1092-2009 v . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) YAQUAN GERALD WILLIAMS ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLV ANI~ CRIMINAL
. \ ) ' Circulated 10/08/2015 01:10 PM2 1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §2501(a). 2 18 Pa.C.S.A. §6106(a)(l). 3 35 P.S. §780
.. J 13(a)(30). following standards apply to the determination of ineffectiveness issues. Discussion submitted their briefs, and the matter i s ready for decision. 2012 and the PCRA Court held evidentiary hearings on August 12, 2014 and October 9, 2014. At the conclusion of the hearings, the Court ordered both parties to file briefs. Both parties have The Defendant filed a timely Motion for Post-Conviction Collateral Relief on October 5, with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania which was denied on January 19, 2012. August 2 , 2011. On August 10, 2011 the Defendant next filed a Petition for Allowance of Appeal Superior Court of Pennsylvania. The Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence on On February 3; 2011 the Defendant, through Appellate Counsel, filed 

# an appeal to the be served consecutively with his life imprisonment for murder charge. ) nor more than four ( 4) years incarceration for delivery of a controlled substance , which were to --· · - · ·· _ · ··-······· · ··

(1) no more than two (2) years incarceration for possession of firearms, and not less than two (2) imprisonment without the possibility ofparole for murder in the first degree, not less than one and one count of d e livery of cocaine. 3 On September 30, 2010, he was sentenced to life homicide - murder in the first degree, 1 one count of firearms not to be carried without a license,2 On September 21, 20 IO a jury found the Defendant guilty of one count of criminal

Procedural and Factual Background } 

# . } i"· ···· ) 

### . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Circulated 10/08/2015 01:10 PM3

counsel knew of, or should have known 

### of the existence of the witness; (4) the witness was ''(l) the witness existed; (2) the witness was available to testify for the defense; (3) 1108-09 (Pa. 2012) established that the petitioner must prove: assistance for failure to call a witness, the Court in Commonwealth v. Sneed, 45 A.3d 1096 , ) Counsel failed to call Keenan Woods as a witness. In order to prove a claim of ineffective _) Counsel's failure to call an eyewitness to the incident as a witness at trial. Specifically, Trial ) The Defendant's first ineffective assistance of counsel claim addresses his Trial ) counsel for failure to call eyewitness is meritless,

1. The Defendant's assertion that his Trial Counsel provided ineffective assistance of ) ) ) \ j hindsight comparison of the chosen strategy and other alternatives. Id. ) Commonwealth v. Miller, 819 A.2d 504, 517 (Pa.2002). Such a claim cannot succeed through a

chosen had some reasonable basis designed to effectuate the defendant's interest. concerned, counsel's assistance is generally deemed constitutionally effective if the course 657, 662 (Pa.Super.Ct. 1998). Additionally, to be eligible for relief, the petitioner must ~th plead and prove his case. 42 Pa.C.S.A. §9543(a). Where matters of strategy and tactics are ) ) ) _) ) first two requirements of the ineffective assistance standard. Commonwealth v. Neal, 713 A.2d

Defendant must establish that there was a resulting prejudice regardless if his claim satisfies the performance caused him prejudice. Commonwealth v. Miller, 746 A.2d 592 (Pa. 2000). The arguable merit; (2) counsel's performance lacked a reasonable basis; and (3) counsel's on an ineffectiveness claim, the Defendant must demonstrate that: (1) the underlying claim is of ineffectiveness

. Commonwealth v. Brooks, 839 A.2d 245, 248 (Pa. 2003). Therefore, to prevail ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) The law presumes that counsel was effective and the Defendant has the burden of proving )

. . \ I ' ' ) 

# . J.
. -·· s- . =0
. ··· -···---- ·-· Circulated 10/08/2015 01:10 PM4

I /· . s t ated that he attempted to call the police to inform them that someone else was the shooter .

Detective. (N.T
. PCRA 24-25). The witness also testified that he wrote a letter to his attorney and witness testified that he realized who the real shooter was two days after speaking with the did not think it was the Defendant. (N.T .PCRA 34). However, during the PCRA hearing the the Assistant District Attorney the general description of the shooter and never mentioned that he the Commonwealth and against the Defendant at trial. Prior to trial, the witness discussed with The witness's testimony is not credible because

- the witn e ss was s c heduled to testify for ) s h ot the victim and it was not the Defendant. (N
. T.PCRA 14-16, 24-25). ) addition, th e witness stated that two days after speaking with the Detecti v e, he recognized who ) detailed description of the shooter. (See Commonwealth Exhibit #1, N.T
. PCRA 22-24). In ) ) 2011, two years after the murder, he wrote a notarized declaration, in whi c h he provided a J not the shooter's id e ntity

. (N.T.PCRA at 20-21). Then the witness testified that on October 4,

was and attempted to contact Detective Nickel to explain that he could provide a de s cription but testified that he wrote a letter to his attorney in which he stated he did not know who the shooter murder. (Notes of Testimony from PCRA (hereinafter '~N.T
. PCRAn at 13-14)). Later the witness the witness testified that he spoke with Detective Nickel during an interview a week after the

... .. .... . .. .. . 

### - - . .. .. . . 

### - -------- - ------- - - - - was not credible based on the testimony provided during the PCRA hearing. During the hearing, caused prejudice to the Defendant and denied him a fair trial. The Court finds that the witness witness was also willing to testify for the defense and that the absence of the witness' testimony as a witness and Trial Counsel knew of the witness

. The Defendant did not prove that the Here, the Defendant was able to satisfy the first two elements because Mr
. Woods existed prejudicial as to have denied the defendant a fair trial ... " ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) · )' ) ) willing to testify for the defense; and (5) the absence of trial testimony of the witness was so \

. )


### . 

### . 

## . ) 

### ) 

# .

- ~ .. · ·- .. .. .. . . Circulated 10/08/2015 01:10 PM5

claim is without merit him as a witness. (N.T
. PCRA 4 7, 50). Trial Counsel also stated that it was his ty pical practice to look into potential witnes s es if a client provides their name . (N.T.PCRA 5 7). Therefore , this the witnes s testify. Trial Counsel testified that he did interview the witness and cho s e not to c all It is a credible strategic decision for the Trial Couns e l to m ake the decision not to h av e testimon y is not c redible , the Defendant fails to prove how he w a s prejudiced. eyewitnesses who gave similar descriptions of the shooter. Since the rest of Mr. Woods' shooter , the witness ' s testimony would actually have been suppo rted

_ at trial by other identify a s hooter as a specific person, but wou l d have p ro vided gen er al descriptions of the was so prejudicial that the defendant was denied a fair trial

. Sin c e the witness was not able to Commonwealth. The Defendant also fails to prov e how the absen c e o f the witness ' s testimony I defense if they had called him but the witn e ss was also pl anning on testifying fo r the

because during the PCRA hearing the witness only stated that he would have testified for th e Next , the Defendant did not prove that the witness was willing to testif y for the defense ) ) ) ) 33). ) explain why he decided to make a notarized statement two years after the tri al. (N.T.PCRA 31-

statement but later stated during cross-examination that he did not attempt to contact the police to tell them they arrested the wrong person. (N.T.PCRA 16 , 30). In addition, the witness failed to ) ) ) ) ) testimony was also not credible when he stated that he tried to contact the Detective to clarify his ) and at this recent meeting , the witness agreed with his previous statements. The witness's

witness on June 6, 2 014 and reviewed the witness's statement that he gave on February 3, 2009 if he left him a voicemail

. (N. T.PCRA 94). The Detective further testified that he met with the ) ) ) ) (N.T.PCRA 30). Detective testified that he never received a call and would have called him back '

. 

### ) ) 'I
~: . . . ~ -· - · \ 

## . / Circulated 10/08/2015 01:10 PM6

denied the Defense's Motion to Suppress Evidence. The Defendant's Trial Counsel filed an The Defendant asserts that his Appeals Counsel failed to file an appeal after the Trial Court _) brief the issue is meritless.

3. · Defendant's claim that his Appeal Counsel 

### was ineffective for failing to raise a claim and other witness's testimony. (See N.T.T. 981-83). Therefore, the claim is meritless. ) ) instructions specifically explained that the jury should not merely believe a law enforcement

officer's testimony because of his position and it should be evaluated the same way as every ) instructions on how to assess the credibility of a witness during the jury instructions. The

helpful to the Commonwealth. " (N.T.PCRA at 54-55). The jury also received appropriate you're trying to keep something out of evidence, then the jury may believe the evidence is ) ) ) ) Defendant's Trial Counsel testified during the PCRA hearing that "if the jury seems to think \ ) \ r decision to not object and that the failure to object caused the Defendant prejudice. The

In addition, the Defendant fails to prove that Tri al Counsel lacked reasonable basis for his ) ) opinion.

Dete ctive Nickel was commenting on the witness' truthfulness during the time of police ) )

__ gμestioning, not the witness' truthfulness at the tdal. The jJ.U:Y- h ad 

### the ability to determine_the___

.. .. . .. ,, .... 

### y ·· -- --- ---- · ) credibility of Mr. Pinnock when he provided his testimony at trial and not rely o n the Detective's ) ) I was telling the truth while giving his statement to the police. The claim is meritless since ) \ ) counsel for eliciting testimony from Detective Nickel that the Detective believed Mr. Pinnock ) ) The Defendant's next claim addresses his Trial Counsel's ineffective assistance of \ / ) elicited testimony from the Detective is meritless

. . , ) ) 2. The Defendant's claim for ineffective assistance of counsel after bis Trial Counsel .i \

· ' 

## ' k

. . .. ~ · ·· · ····· --···---- -- - · ·· ···· \ 

### . . .I Circulated 10/08/2015 01:10 PM7

the Def e ndant as part of an investigative detention. i ., . . H. 34-38). However , th e Sergeant also had reasonable suspicion to stop

witnessed two motor v ehi c le code violations, which pro v i de reasonab l e suspicion and proper ) Commonw e s1lth v. Jackson , 698 A.2d 571, 573 (Pa; 1997)). The Sergeant also tes tified that he

officer had reasonable su s picion. (Commonwealth v. Cook , 735 A.2d 673, 677 (Pa
. 1999) (citing inferenc e s drawn from those facts in light of the o f fi c er ' s experience " in determining whether th e ) ) ) ) ) ) These facts satisfy the officer's need to " point to specific and articulable facts and reasonab le \ I away from the location o f the incident an hour after the incident oc c urred. (N.S
. H. 14-15, 17-18). \ r Sergeant was informed by fellow officers that the Defendant used a blac k Honda with Delaware

registration plates and was frequently in the area and the Defendant wa s in fact found four blo c ks ) was found four blocks away from the location o f the incident. (N.S

. H. 14-15). In additi o n , the

victim and the police were aware that the victim was an informant. (N.S.H. 7-14). The Defendant } -· · - . ··· ·· - . · · ;~ene of the incident and then left in order to search for the Defendant , w h o w a s identified by the ) ) ) ) ) ) The Defendant failed to prove that the claim has arguable merit and his Appellate Counsel ) provided ineffective assistance of counsel. During the Suppression Hearing Sergeant Jarrad )

· ) Berkihiser provided testimony that he had reasonable suspicion to stop the Defendant and also ) had probable cause to arrest the Def end ant. (Notes of Suppression Hearing , hereinafter " N
. S .H. " ) ) at 7- 1 4). The Sergeant had reasonable suspicion to 

### stop the Defendant after he arrived on the

deny i ng the Suppression Motion but failed to brief the issue and it was therefore wai v ed. ) ) ) A.mended Motion to Suppress on October 9, 2009 to challenge the legali ty of the vehicle stop of

the Defendant. The Defendant's Appellate Counsel raised the issue that the Trial Court erred in \
. . )

. . 

# L

. Circulated 10/08/2015 01:10 PM8

full consultation with the defendant and the topic of whether to appeal is on the list. However, _ ; · Narducci looks at the ABA Standard 4-5.2 and lists decisions that are made by counsel after a

course pursued by counsel does not have a significant potential for success . The Court in e en ant asserts that a strategy will not be considered legally reasonable if the alternative Narducci, 18 F.Supp.2d ~81 (E.D.Pa. 1997). Narducci involves ABA Standard 4-5.2 and the strategic if Counsel fails to consult with his client or the decision is unsound according to 

### U
. S. v. client's best interest. Defendant also asserted that Counsel's decisions will not be considered \ , waiving the issue and his Appellate Counsel was not objectively reasonable or acting in the ' / the Defendant. Therefore, the issue was waived and the Defendant was unaware of the impact of ) appeal, Counsel failed to discuss the reasoning behind his decision to not pursue the case with

The Defendant asserts · that while Counsel has the ultimate decision to raise the issues on \ } something that has some chance of success on appeal. " (N
. T.PCRA. 66). ) Appellate Counsel continued to explain that "I think it's a stronger presentation to raise \ ) claims that have some arguable merit ; give yourself a chance to be heard." (N.T.PCRA 65).

issue because he did not "think that's effective advocacy. I think your best chance is to raise PCRA 65-66). Specifically, Appellate Counsel asserted that he did not raise the suppression create a stronger impression with the Superior Court regarding the validity of the case. (N. T
. ' .) ) · ) 

### T

. ) ) ) Appellate Counsel ' s tactics were to raise only the claims that have a chance at success in order to ) ) because he thought it was frivolous and ridiculous and, therefore, lacked merit. (N.T.PCRA 65). ) During the PCRA hearing , Appellate Counsel testified that he chose not to pursue the claim ) as the Defendant asserts, but rather was the result of a search wan·ant.

search warrant for the search of the black Honda. The search was not a search incident to arrest ) The Defendant also raised the issue of whether there was sufficient probable cause in the ) '\ )

- , ) Circulated 10/08/2015 01:10 PM9 ) P a. R. Evi d. 80 3 and 804 apply

. s h e wou ld b e kill e d

. Th e D e fen dant als o st ate d th at n on e of th e hearsay e x cepti o n s und er matter as serte d , that Ms. John so n fe are d th e defendan t an d she w a s aware that if s h e "sn itched " etec tiv e was repeati ng a state me nt mad e b y Ms
. J o hnso n in o rd er to estab lis h the tru th of the D e fendant a s sert s that th e testimo n y. i s cl a ss ic hears ay und er P a . RB vid, 801 b e c au se the her, (N
. T.T. 62-6 3)
. Th e Defendan t ' s Trial C o un se l did n ot ob je ct during thi s tes tim o n y. Th e heard that sh e w a s snitc hing and that i f she was sni tchin g to th e police ; th en h e was go i ng to kill M s. Johns o n info rme d him th at the De f endan t called h er and to l d her that h e, th e D ef end ant, mention any testimon y regarding Ms
. Aguilera. During the Tri al, De te c ti v e N auman testifi e d th at a hear say ob

j ecti o n reg arding M s . A guilera' s testim on y b u t the body of the argument do e s ' not the D efe ndant ' s headin g in his PCRA discu ss es C o unsel's f ailure to p re serv e an d p ro perl y argu e N au m an ' s testimon y , w hich co nt ain ed po s sible h e arsay. The Co mm on w ealth makes n o te that The Defendant's n e xt c laim addresses his Trial Counsel's fai lure to ob je ct to Dete c ti v e als o meri tless , 

# , . •. 

### - · · ·· · ~- - -- - - ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ --- · -· - · · - - - . '
. 4
. The Defe n dant's claim that Tri al Counse l' s failure to obje ct toDetecti v e ' s te sti mon y is

for n o t pursu i ng the claim and the De fe ndant failed to show that prejudic e would have occurred

. Therefore ; this claim is meritless as his Appell ate Counsel had a rea sonable strategic b as is discovering the critical evidence of the gu n that w ere u s ed to con vi ct him

. on the facts determined bythe Tri al Court re gardin g the v alidity of the se arch w arrants an d prejudi c e . There is no indi c ati o n that the outcome o f the appeal w ould have been diff ere n t ba s ed 18 F.Supp. 2 d at 493-94. H ere , th e Defendant failed to d e monstr ate that the claim cau sed him Narducci contains a second prong where the Peti tioner must pro ve pre j udi ce occ urred as a res u lt.

) J • ) 

### ) ) ) > ) ) ) )

. ) )

. · .} Circulated 10/08/2015 01:10 PM10

opening the door to prejudicial testimony by Officer Halstead. During cross-examination the · The Defendant asserts that his Trial Counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel for witness. Amendment for opening the door to prejudicial testimony from a Commonwealth 5, The Defendant's Trial Counsel was not constitutional]y ineffective under the Sixth not the truth of the matter asserted

. (N.T. 9/14/10 at 37 )
. Therefore, the claim is meritless. because the Trial Court ensured that the testimony would be offered as proof of motive only and assistance of counsel by failing to object to the testimony and there was no prejudice caused In addition, the Defendant failed to prove that Trial Counsel provided ineffective permitted and an objection to this testimony would lack arguable merit. admitted at trial." Therefore, the testimony that was introduced by the Commonwealth was prior contact with Mary Johnson, including testimony regarding alleged controlled substance transactions between the two as well as discussions regarding possible sales of firearms, shall be )

_-

_. ~~ - ~rted

but rather to show motive, intent, state ofmind,

__ and the history of this case. This Court issued its ruling on May 24, 2010 ordering that "evidence regarding Defendant's relationship and therefore admissible as non-hearsay because it is not offered to show the truth of the matter Defendant's motive, malice, intent, knowledge, and plan. The Conunonwealth asserts that it is contact with Ms. Johnson as related by Ms. Johnson to other individuals, to show the 19, 2010. The Commonwealth requested that evidence of Defendant's relationship and prior Intent to Introduce Evidence of Other Crimes, Wrong or Acts and a hearing was held on April ) ) ) ) ) ) and previously ruled upon by the Court. On March 3~ 2010 the Commonwealth filed a Notice of ) However, the Commonwealth asserted that the matter was discussed in pre-trial motions \-

. 

### ) )
. - -



### . r , \ 

## . ) Circulated 10/08/2015 01:10 PM11

shooting. Mr
. Pinnock testified that he saw who was in the area and identified the shooter as examination. Mr. Pinnock provided testimony regarding who was in the area at the time of the counsel for failing to object to a question the Prosecution posed to 

### Mr. Pinnock during direct to object to questions to an eyewitness. 6. Trial Counsel was not constitutionally ineffective under the Sixth Amendment for failing that Trial Counsel lacked reasonable basis in bringing the claim and that it caused him p rejudice. (N.T.T. 580). Therefore, the testimony ~hat Officer Halstead provided would have been brought out by Ms
. Turner ' s testimony as well

. This claim must fail because the Defendant fails to show that she originally told Officer Halstead a different version of the events because she was scared. he admitted to shooting Ms. Johnson to Mr. Morant and Ms. Turner. Ms
. Turner herself stated was not prejudicial. The Defendant was elso

- identifled by Ms. Johnson and Mr. Middleton, and have a tactical reason for opening the door and attempted to withdraw the question, the testimony she was scared. (N
. T
. T. 112). However , even though it may appear that the Trial Counsel did not testimony from a witness, Ms. Turner, after she testified she gave conflicting testimony because -· · · · . . .. Counsel did not open the door. The Defendant believes that Trial Counsel elicited prejudicial

. The Defendant also asserts that the outcome of the trial would have been different if Trial shooter and then attempted to garner evidence to support the theory

. officer because he was pursuing the theory that the police determined th at the Defendant was the and cross-examination demonstrates that Trial Counsel had a reasonable basis for questioning the only took the version of events that pleased the Officer. Trial Counsel's questioning during direct Defendant's Trial Counsel alluded to the fact that Officer Halstead questioned Ms. Turner and )

The Defendant's final claim asserts that his Trial Counsel provided ineffective assistance of \ .I ) ) ) ) ) } \ , J \ ) ) ) ) I \ ) ) )- ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 

# .~ :

. . . Circulated 10/08/2015 01:10 PM12

after the Commonwealth attempted to use a non-testifying co-defendant' swords against a (Pa. 1996), which also discusses prosecutorial misconduct but for violation of the Bruton rule, trial proceedings. The Defendant also references Commonwealth v. Miles, 681 A.2d 1295 , 1301 · establishes the prosecutorial misconduct for calling a sequestered witness after he sat through (Pa. 1994) in support of asking who the person resembled as misleading the jury but Pierce

. questions is meritless. The Defendant references Commonwealth v. Pierce, 645 A.2d 189, 197 question was objectionable as the Defendant believes and failing to object to the more specified the Court never sustained Trial Counsel's objection, he

. would not have been aware that the Mr. Pinnock

. who the person resembled in terms of clothing, build and stature. (N.T. 497). Since question more specific. (N.T.496-97). The ADA complied with the Court's request and asked The Court did not sustain the objection but i n stead directed the ADA to make his it. (N.T. PCRA 55-56). Commonwealth ask an eyewitness if the defendant resembled someone, but he probably did hear PCRA at 56). In addition, Trial Counsel did state that he didn'tknow if he heard the inherently different from asking him if this is the same person who committed the crime." CN:
. T. · ------- ·-=----- - ---- · - ·-· - . "asking an eyewitness if the defendant looks like the person who committed the crime is )

. . .. . . . . . ·- · · . . · - · · -· - · · - -- - ---

and stature (N.T.T. 497). During the PCRA hearing, Trial Counsel testified that he believed that 497). The prosecution next asked Mr. Pinnock who the person resembled in terms of clothing ) ) overruled the objection but directed the Prosecution to make his question more specific. (N.T.T.

was . not relevant or material. However, Trial Counsel objected to the question but the Court · The fact that the Prosecution asked whether the Petitioner resembled the person he saw that night ) ) ) ) "Of all those people, who does that person most resemble?" (N. T.T. 496-97) was objectionable. \ I wearing dark clothing

. (N.T.T
. 493-95). The Defendant argues that the prosecution's question: ) Circulated 10/08/2015 01:10 PM13

Accordingly, I enter the following: ) ) ) ) ) Morant 547-50, and Ms. Turner 577-79). Therefore, the claim is meritless. ) ) ) admitted that he shot the victim. (N.T.T 

### Mr. Middleton 445-48,.460 , Ms. Johnson 240-41, 

### Mr. ) ) )

__ _ __ _ _ ~~~

_emblance of the Defendant to show that the Defendant was the shooter

. Two other witnes.s.es

. ··-· · · ··- .

were able

. to identify the Defendant as the shooter and two witnesses testi fi ed that the Defendant different. There was sufficient evidence besides the witness' testimony regarding the ) been sustained and found improper and inadmissible, the outcome of the trial would have been ) ) ) how he was prejudiced by the testimony. The Defendant is unable to show if the objection had ) In addition, even ifthe Trial Counsel was found lneff e ctive.fhe Defendant fails to show \ ) Counsel for failure to object to the ADA's question .. ) ) concern prosecutorial misconduct when the Defendant is asserting ineffective assistance of Trial

defendant. The Court therefore note s that while the Defendant addresses these cases , they \
. · ) ) 

# . '¥ ~ . Circulated 10/08/2015 01:10 PM'

. 14 . , 

# ., ' I

. l / ) ) · Amber L. Czern i akow s ki, Esquire

Teri B. Himebaugh, Esquire ) ) ) ) ATTEST: - ) DENNISE. REINAKER PRESIDENT JUDGE April 9, 2015 

### IIIDENNIS 

### AEINAKER 

## PRE&· JUDGE BY THE COURT: DENIED. ) ) ) 

## '

. ). Conviction Collateral Rel i e f filed October 5, 2 012~ it is hereby ordered that the peti tion is

. - ---· - ·- - ·--~=-=-= = -=--o:- -:--::-:--~--.:--:--T:""'"'"'.'~:C---:,------c:----:----:c---c----:---:-=---:--:---,;:-- -:::- -- -- -· - --

AND NOW , thi s 9th day of April, 2015 after a heari ng on the Amended Petition for Post- -, )
. ) ORDER

YAQUANGERALD WILLIAMS No. 1092-2009



### v . COMMONWEALTH 

### OF PENNSYLVANIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IN THE COURT OF COMM:ON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY , PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL '

. 

### J '. ! \
. I Circulated 10/08/2015 01:10 PM