J-S16030-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

LUCAS ALLEN NEWNAM 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 791 MDA 2021

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered June 8, 2021,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County,

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0003420-2016.

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED: JULY 11, 2022

Lucas Allen Newnam appeals from the order denying his first timely 

petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”)1following his 

conviction for first-degree murder. We affirm.

Newnam’s conviction arose after he shot Julius Dale, III (“the victim”) 

on May 27, 2016. His jury trial began on July 31, 2017. The PCRA court 

summarized the testimony from the six Commonwealth witnesses who were

at the residence that day as follows:

Dan Umble testified that he and [Newnam] lived together at 

304 Creek Road in Sadsbury Township. A couple months prior to 

the shooting, [Newnam] gave the victim permission to move into 

the house. According to Umble, [Newnam] and the victim both 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-46.
J-S16030-22

- 2 -

sold drugs out of the house and it was “the only thing anybody did 

in the house to make money other than me.” On May 27, 2016, 

Umble was working in the garage when he heard [Newnam] and 

the victim arguing. Umble saw [Newnam] come out of the house 

holding a sawed-off shotgun and heard him yell for Umble to “get 

him out of the house or I’m gonna kill him.” Umble could not see 

the victim. Umble then heard a gunshot. When he walked up to 

the house, Umble saw the victim [lying] dead in the threshold of 

the basement door and [Newnam] had a shotgun in his hands. At 

no time did Umble hear [Newnam] say anything to indicate he was 

in fear of the victim.

Mark Porter testified that he also lived at 304 Creek Road 

with [Newnam] and the victim, and he believed they were in 

business together selling drugs out of the house. On May 27, 

2016, Porter saw [Newnam] and the victim playing outside with 

fireworks and hanging out together in the basement area without 

any sign of conflict. The victim had a handgun in a holster on his 

side. Porter then walked down to the garage and shortly 

thereafter he heard [Newnam] yelling at the victim for betraying 

him. [Newnam] sounded angry, and never said anything to 

suggest he was in fear. Porter heard [Newnam] yell for Umble to 

come and get the victim out of his face, followed by a gunshot. 

Porter did not see either individual and he did not see what 

occurred.

Anthony Williams testified that he frequently visited 304 

Creek Road, where both the victim and [Newnam] lived and sold 

drugs. Williams stated that a conflict arose between [Newnam] 

and the victim days before the shooting because [Newnam] 

became aware the victim was going behind [Newnam’s] back to 

buy drugs. On May 27, 2016, Williams arrived at the residence 

and heard arguing. Williams saw [Newnam] and the victim 

emerge from the basement door with [Newnam’s] back to the 

victim. [Newnam] was very agitated and was holding a firearm. 

[Newnam] kept stating that the victim had betrayed him and he 

told the victim to leave. The victim, who seemed remorseful, 

refused to leave because it appeared he wanted to work things 

out. [Newnam] told the victim two or three times to leave or

[Newnam] would shoot him. [Newnam] also called for Umble to 

remove the victim from the property. [Newnam] then turned 

around to face the victim, pulled the trigger without hesitation, 

and shot the victim.
J-S16030-22

- 3 -

Williams stated he had a clear view of [Newnam] and the 

victim during the entire incident. When he was shot, the victim 

did not have anything in his hands, he did not reach for anything 

at any point in time, and he did not say anything threatening to 

[Newnam]. The victim was gesturing with his hands, but the 

gestures did not seem threatening or aggressive. At no time did 

Williams hear [Newnam] say anything to suggest he was in fear 

of the victim. [Newnam] then yelled for everyone to help him 

drag the body into the woods and told them to give up their keys 

and cellphones. Williams put his keys and cellphone on the 

ground, then backed up slowly down the walkway. 

Rachel Long testified that she knew [Newnam] for several 

years, and knew he was selling drugs out of 304 Creek Road. 

When Long was at the residence with her son on May 27, 2016, 

she saw the victim with a handgun in a holster on the outside of 

his clothing. The victim had just recently started wearing the gun 

and Long did not believe there was anything unusual about his 

demeanor. Long also saw [Newnam], who told her she should not 

have her son “at a drug house.” Later that day, Long heard 

[Newnam] and the victim arguing, at which time she heard 

[Newnam] yelling that the victim had betrayed him. At no time 

did Long hear [Newnam] say anything that would suggest he was 

in fear. Long then heard a gunshot.

Alexis Hernandez-Gable testified that she was at 304 Creek 

Road on May 27, 2016, when she heard Newnam and the victim 

arguing downstairs. She could hear both voices, but [Newnam’s]

voice was louder while the victim’s tone was not unusual. They 

were arguing about money and [Newnam] kept saying “you 

betrayed me.” Although Hernandez-Gable heard [Newnam] tell 

the victim to put his gun in the safe, she did not hear [Newnam]

tell the victim to show his hands or say anything to indicate he 

was in fear. Hernandez-Gable then heard a loud gunshot and 

[Newman] stated that he shot the victim. When she left the 

residence, Hernandez-Gable saw the victim laying in the doorway 

and his hands were empty.

Erin Houck testified that she lived at 304 Creek Road with 

[Newnam] and the victim, who were both in the business of selling 

drugs out of the house. On May 25, 2016, the victim informed 

Houck that he bought drugs from [Newnam’s] mother. The victim 

also pulled out a gun and stated he would kill [Newnam]. Houck 

warned [Newnam] about the threat that same day. On May 26, 

2016, [Newnam] and the victim got into an argument because the 
J-S16030-22

- 4 -

victim was buying drugs from [Newnam’s] mother and [Newnam] 

did not approve. [Newnam] repeatedly told the victim to leave 

the house.

On May 27, 2016, Houck awoke around 12 noon and saw 

that the victim had returned to the residence. [Newnam] was still 

sleeping. The victim decided to wake [Newnam] because it was 

Friday and it was time to make money by selling drugs out of the 

house. The victim was loud and animated, but he was not violent 

or aggressive in any way. When he was awakened, [Newnam] 

told the victim he had to leave or give [Newnam] his gun. The 

victim declined. The victim was known to wear a gun on his hip, 

but Houck did not see the victim with a gun that day and did not 

hear him threaten [Newnam] with a gun. Houck also did not see 

the victim do anything that was threatening. [Newnam] had a 

gun strapped around his neck.

Houck went from the basement where [Newnam] and the 

victim were located to the [third floor] of the house, at which time 

she heard [Newnam] yell for Dan Umble to “get [the victim] the 

hell out of here.” Houck then heard a gunshot, followed by 

[Newnam] demanding that everyone give him their cellphones. 

Houck did not see the shooting. At no time during the argument 

did Houck hear [Newnam] ask the victim to put down a gun, show 

his hands, or say anything that would indicate [Newnam] was in 

fear of the victim. Thereafter, Houck saw that [Newnam] was still 

armed with a gun and the victim was [lying] in a doorway.

PCRA Court Opinion, 8/11/21, at 3-7 (citations omitted).

In addition to these witnesses, the Commonwealth presented testimony 

from various law enforcement authorities who responded to the scene and 

searched for Newnam, who had fled into the woods and was not captured until 

the next morning. A Pennsylvania trooper also testified to finding the victim’s 

body covered by a blue tarp outside the front of the house. Following his 

arrest, Newnam was interviewed by the police. The PCRA court summarized 

this interview as follows:
J-S16030-22

- 5 -

Trooper Michael Snyder interviewed [Newnam] at [the 

Pennsylvania State Police] barracks shortly after [Newnam] was 

taken into custody. According to [Trooper] Snyder, [Newnam] 

was alert, coherent, and did not appear intoxicated. The ninetyminute interview, which was audio and visually recorded, was 

played for the jury. During the interview, [Newnam] initially 

claimed he did not live at 304 Creek Road, non-white people came 

to the house to hassle the victim over drug money, [Newnam] fled 

the house before anything happened to the victim, and he 

repeatedly swore he did not shoot the victim. At trial, [Newnam] 

told the jury “most of that was totally bullshit on my behalf.” 

PCRA Court Opinion, 8/11/21, at 8-9 (citations omitted).2

The PCRA court then summarized the evidence presented by the 

defense, first continuing with Newnam’s own testimony:

[Newnam] began by telling the jury that he had been selling 

marijuana and methamphetamine for one year because he had no 

other source of income, selling drugs was a long-term productive 

way to make a living, and it was “easier than actually working.” 

[Newnam] allowed the victim to stay at 304 Creek Road rent free, 

and he gave the victim drugs [that] the victim could resell for 

profit. [Newnam testified that the victim used some of these 

drugs, which prevented him from effectively dealing them. 

Newnam previously took the victim’s gun as collateral until the 

victim could pay off his $1,200 debt.]

[Newnam] stated that he and the victim got into an argument 

one day prior to the shooting because the victim was stealing 

drugs. [Newnam] asked the victim to leave and the victim 

complied. When the victim returned [later that day], [Newnam] 

again made it clear that [the victim] had to leave permanently and 

the victim left a second time.

On May 27, 2016, the victim returned to the residence and 

they began arguing about the theft. [Newnam] told the jury the 

victim was high and jumpy, and he had a gun on his hip. 

____________________________________________

2 On cross-examination at trial, although Newnam denied that he hid in the 

woods and hid his cell phone to prevent the police from finding him, he 

acknowledged that he made these statements to his mother in calls that were 

recorded at the county prison. 
J-S16030-22

- 6 -

Immediately prior to the shooting, [Newnam] was yelling at the 

victim for betraying him by stealing marijuana from the house. 

[Newnam] also heard the victim was threatening his life. 

[Newnam] denied killing the victim over a rumor that the victim 

was buying drugs from [Newnam’s] mother even though he told 

the police during his interview that the argument was over the 

victim buying drugs from his mother. [Newnam] explained the 

contradiction by stating, “I lied a lot to the troopers.”

[Newnam] testified that the victim poked him in the chest

while they were inside the basement, [Newnam] picked up his 

shotgun as he backed out of the door because he was scared of 

the victim. [He] also yelled for Dan Umble to remove the victim 

from the residence, or “somebody’s gonna get shot.” [Newnam] 

claimed the victim then reached for his gun so [Newnam] shot him 

out of fear for his life. [He] agreed that he asked everyone for 

their phones and keys so they could not call the police, he dragged 

the victim’s body, covered it with a tarp, and ran into the woods. 

[Newnam] asserted he returned to the scene the next morning to 

turn himself in to police. However, [he] admitted he gave the 

police a false name, false date of birth, false social security 

number, and a false story about why he was there.

PCRA Court Opinion, 8/11/21, at 9-10 (citations and footnotes omitted).

Finally, the PCRA court summarized the testimony of five witnesses 

called by the defense to corroborate Newnam’s claim of self-defense:

Lauren Serbin testified that she was acquainted with the 

victim and saw him under the influence of methamphetamine 

seven or eight times. In February 2016, Serbin noted the victim 

appeared agitated, grabbed her arms very tightly, and said people 

were after him. On another occasion the victim assaulted her 

friend. Another time, Serbin heard the victim state in 

conversation that he would kill anyone who tried to take what he 

had. Serbin believed the victim was under the influence of 

methamphetamine on each occasion. On cross-examination, 

Serbin acknowledged she wrote a letter to [Newnam] in 

September of 2016 stating, “I will do what I can to make sure you 

don’t spend your life in prison,” and admitted she did not inform 

police about the victim’s behavior when a state trooper came to 

speak with her prior to trial.
J-S16030-22

- 7 -

Kristalee Ryan testified that she was a friend of both 

[Newnam] and the victim. At the time of the murder, Ryan was 

living in her car in the driveway at 304 Creek Road. On May 26, 

2016, when she and the victim drove around most of the day 

trying to cash a check, the victim used marijuana and 

methamphetamine. According to Ryan, the victim got extremely 

frustrated and screamed with road rage. When they returned to 

304 Creek Road around 6:00 p.m., [Newnam] and the victim had 

an argument over drugs and [Newnam] told the victim to leave. 

Ryan then drove the victim to his father’s house. During the drive, 

the victim seemed upset and told Ryan “one of these days 

somebody’s gonna get hurt.”

Cheyenne Seats testified that the victim and Anthony 

Williams came to her house late in the evening on May 26, 2016, 

and the victim talked to everyone about selling 

methamphetamine. Seats then heard the victim ask Williams to 

go get bullets because his gun was empty. Williams left the house 

and when he returned, he pulled bullets from his bag. The victim 

then loaded his pistol. Seats also saw Williams and the victim use 

methamphetamine before they left the house around 9:00 a.m. 

[the next morning]. On cross-examination, Seats stated she 

believed the victim was arming himself and recruiting others to 

sell methamphetamine for him. Seats also admitted she did not 

report this information to [the state police] even though she was 

aware the victim was killed the next day, [Newnam] was charged 

with killing him, and [Newnam] was a meth dealer. Seats stated 

that prior to her testimony at trial she talked to “[t]he person I 

was supposed to talk to,” but she had no opportunity to share her 

information with law enforcement authorities in the fourteen 

months since the murder because she moved.

Zachary Wible testified that he was present when the victim 

and Williams showed up where Seats was living and the victim 

asked everyone in the house to sell methamphetamine for him. 

Shortly thereafter, Williams left on his own accord. Williams 

returned in the early morning hours with a silver and black 

handgun, gave the gun to the victim, and the victim loaded the 

gun with bullets. The victim then left the house between 7:00 

a.m. and 8:00 a.m. Wible described the victim’s demeanor as 

“shady . . . like there was something going on that he wasn’t 

talking about.” Wible admitted on cross-examination that he did 

not report this information to [the state police], explaining that he 

“didn’t think anything of it . . . I figured if someone needed to 

know something like that, they would get in touch with me.” 
J-S16030-22

- 8 -

Allen Crosby testified that he was the boyfriend of 

[Newnam’s] mother, Lisa Fisher. On May 21, 2016, almost one 

week before the shooting, the victim came to their residence and 

told Crosby and Fisher that they had to “do something about 

[Newnam]. He’s getting out of hand.” As Fisher left the room, 

the victim stood next to Crosby and stated “he’s just getting out 

of hand, I’m gonna have to take him down.” The victim then 

reached around and pulled out a holster with a gun. On cross 

examination, Crosby acknowledged he was present when police 

came to speak with Fisher after the shooting, and he did not bring 

this alleged threat to their attention even though he knew that 

[Newnam] had been charged with murdering the person who had 

shown him a gun and threated to shoot [Newnam] approximately 

one week before [Newnam] killed the victim.

PCRA Court Opinion, 8/11/21, at 11-13 (citation omitted).

On August 4, 2017, the jury found Newnam guilty of first-degree 

murder. On August 9, 2017, the trial court sentence him to a mandatory term 

of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Newnam filed a postsentence motion, which the trial court denied. Newnam appealed to this 

Court. In a non-precedential decision filed on January 25, 2019, we affirmed 

his judgment of sentence. Commonwealth v. Newnam, 209 A.3d 530 (Pa. 

Super. 2019). Our Supreme Court denied Newnam’s petition for allowance of 

appeal on June 26, 2019. Commonwealth v. Newnam, 215 A.3d 970 (Pa. 

2019). On January 13, 2020, the United States Supreme Court denied 

Newnam’s petition for certiorari. Newnam v. Pennsylvania, 140 S.Ct. 904 

(2020).

On January 12, 2021, Newman filed a timely PCRA in which he raised 

two clams of ineffectiveness of trial counsel. The Commonwealth filed a 

response. On May 7, 2021, the PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice 
J-S16030-22

- 9 -

of its intent to dismiss Newnam’s PCRA petition without a hearing. Newnam 

did not file a response. By order entered June 8, 2021, the PCRA court 

dismissed Newnam’s petition. This appeal followed. Both Newnam and the 

PCRA court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Newnam raises the following two issues on appeal:

1. Did the PCRA Court abuse its discretion in dismissing 

[Newnam’s] claim without [an] evidentiary hearing 

where [he] adequately pled that he was entitled to relief 

based on ineffective assistance of counsel for counsel’s 

failure to furnish the Commonwealth with the prior 

written statements of two defense witnesses?

2. Did the PCRA Court abuse its discretion in dismissing 

[Newnam’s] claim without [an] evidentiary hearing 

where [he] adequately pled that he was entitled to relief 

based on ineffective assistance of counsel for counsel’s 

failure to elicit [at] trial from these two defense witnesses 

that they had in fact provided a private investigator with 

written statements?

Newnam’s Brief at 5.3

This Court’s standard of review for an order dismissing a PCRA petition 

is to ascertain whether the order “is supported by the evidence of record and 

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

____________________________________________

3

In its brief, the Commonwealth asks this Court to dismiss Newnam’s appeal 

for failing to file timely his appellate brief and reproduced record pursuant to 

Pa.R.A.P. 2188. As Newnam’s tardiness in filing his brief and complete failure 

to designate a reproduced record is ineffectiveness per se, we decline to 

dismiss his appeal on this basis and will address the merits of his claims. 
J-S16030-22

- 10 -

there is no support for the findings in the certified record.” Commonwealth 

v. Barndt, 74 A.3d 185, 191-92 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citations omitted).

The PCRA court has discretion to dismiss a petition without 

a hearing when the court is satisfied that there are no 

genuine issues concerning any material fact, the defendant 

is not entitled to post-conviction collateral relief, and no 

legitimate purpose would be served by further proceedings. 

To obtain a reversal of a PCRA court’s decision to dismiss a 

petition without a hearing, an appellant must show that he 

raised a genuine issue of material fact which, if resolved in 

his favor, would have entitled him to relief, or that the court 

otherwise abused its discretion in denying a hearing. 

Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 108 A.3d 739, 750 (Pa. 2014) (citations 

omitted).

Newnam’s issues challenges the effectiveness of trial counsel. To obtain 

relief under the PCRA premised on a claim that counsel was ineffective, a 

petitioner must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that counsel’s 

ineffectiveness so undermined the truth determining process that no reliable 

adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place. Commonwealth 

v. Johnson, 966 A.2d 523, 532 (Pa. 2009). “Generally, counsel’s 

performance is presumed to be constitutionally adequate, and counsel will 

only be deemed ineffective upon a sufficient showing by the petitioner.” Id. 

This requires the petitioner to demonstrate that: (1) the underlying claim is 

of arguable merit; (2) counsel had no reasonable strategic basis for his or her 

action or inaction; and (3) the petitioner was prejudiced by counsel's act or 

omission. Id. at 533. A failure to satisfy any prong of the test for 
J-S16030-22

- 11 -

ineffectiveness will require rejection of the claim. Commonwealth v. Martin, 

5 A.3d 177, 183 (Pa. 2010).

Because both of Newnam’s ineffectiveness claims involve the testimony 

of Seats and Crosby, we address them together. According to Newnam:

Eight months before trial, defense counsel was armed 

with written statements from [Seats and Crosby] that 

substantially corroborated Newnam’s forthcoming trial 

testimony. Trial counsel was not aware these statements 

existed and therefore did not furnish them to the 

Commonwealth. Consequently, the Commonwealth was 

able to effectively attack these witnesses’ credibility by 

repeatedly noting that these witnesses were providing their 

accounts for the first time at trial, sixteen months after the 

shooting. Compounding this error in refusing to furnish 

these prior statements, counsel failed to elicit any testimony 

from [them] that they had in fact given their statements 

long before trial. The result was the presentation of 

testimony from [Seats and Crosby] was incomplete, and the 

jury did not deliberate with the full truth. A new trial, or at 

least an evidentiary hearing, is warranted.

Newnam’s Brief at 10.

The PCRA court found these claims lacked merit, because Newnam 

essentially mischaracterized the Commonwealth’s cross-examination of Seats 

and Crosby: 

While [Newnam] asserted in his PCRA petition that he was 

prejudiced when the Commonwealth was able to argue that 

Seats and Crosby were not credible because their accounts 

were recently fabricated, a review of the record shows the 

Commonwealth did not challenge the credibility of Seats or 

Crosby based on recent fabrication. Rather the 

Commonwealth questioned [Seats and Crosby] on their 

failure to provide this important information to law 

enforcement authorities prior to trial. 
J-S16030-22

- 12 -

PCRA Court’s Opinion, 8/11/21, at 15 (footnote omitted).

The court then cited from the relatively brief cross-examination of Seats 

and concluded that “the prosecutor clearly focused on Seats’ failure to provide 

this critical information to law enforcement.” Id. at 16. The court also cited 

the brief cross-examination of Crosby and concluded that “the prosecutor’s 

questioning focused solely on whether Crosby shared this information with the 

police.” Id. at 17. The Court further cited the prosecutor’s closing argument 

in which he argued that none of the defense witnesses previously informed 

the police of the information they provided in the trial testimony.

Finally, the PCRA court noted that:

[T]he statements of Seats and Crosby were given to a 

defense investigator on November 15, 2016, approximately 

six months after the shooting. Thus, the witnesses would 

have been subject to the same line of cross examination and 

the Commonwealth could have made the same argument to 

the jury even if trial counsel had provided the statements to 

the Commonwealth. Seats and Crosby failed to provide this 

important information to police, they waited six months to 

provide this information to an investigator hired by 

[Newnam], and they did so only after they had the 

opportunity to align their accounts with Newnam’s self 

defense claim. As such, this claim lacks merit.

PCRA Court Opinion, 8/11/21, at 18 (citation omitted).

As to trial counsel’s failure to elicit testimony from Seats and Crosby 

that they had given prior consistent statements, the PCRA correctly concluded 

that these statements would not have been admissible as a prior inconsistent 

statement because they were given to the private investigator six months 

after the Commonwealth charged Newnam with homicide. See id. at 27 
J-S16030-22

- 13 -

(citing Pa.R.E. 613(c), and Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 556 A.2d 370, 

372 (Pa. 1989). The court further found that even if trial counsel had elicited 

testimony that they did talk to a defense investigator six months after the 

murder, it was “unlikely such a disclosure would have enhanced the credibility 

of those witnesses.” PCRA Court Opinion, 8/11/21, at 28.

Our review of the record provides ample support for the PCRA court’s 

conclusion that Newnam’s ineffectiveness claims lacked arguable merit.4 The 

record supports the PCRA court’s further observation that the Commonwealth 

briefly cross-examined four of the five defense witnesses in the same manner. 

See id. at 15, n.10. In addition, the victim’s threat to kill Newnam came out 

as part of Houck’s testimony for the Commonwealth.

Newnam’s claims to the contrary are without merit. As correctly noted 

by the PCRA court, Newnam’s trial counsel was under no obligation to furnish 

the prior statements of Seats and Crosby to the Commonwealth during 

____________________________________________

4 Although not necessary, the PCRA court also addressed the other two prongs 

of the ineffectiveness test. Our review of the record supports the PCRA court’s 

conclusion that the reasonableness of trial counsel’s strategy was apparent 

from the record: “[By withholding any prior statement by defense witnesses,] 

counsel presented the jury with an alternative theory of the incident, he 

attempted to discredit the quality of the police investigation through the 

testimony of witnesses not called by the Commonwealth, and he gave the 

Commonwealth little advance time to prepare.

The record further supports the PCRA court’s conclusion that Newnam 

could not establish prejudice. As detailed above, the PCRA court found that 

the evidence from eyewitnesses to the shooting was overwhelming, and given 

their testimony, Newnam’s claim of self-defense lacked credibility. Id. at 28.

 
J-S16030-22

- 14 -

discovery because they were not eyewitnesses to the shooting nor did they 

support an alibi or mental infirmity defense. See PCRA Court Opinion,

8/11/21, at 19, n.11. In addition, as noted by the PCRA court, providing these 

statements to the Commonwealth would have allowed the Commonwealth to 

interview them prior to trial and perhaps weaken or contradict their eventual 

trial testimony. See id. at 18. Although Newnam claims trial counsel could 

have just asked Seats and Crosby if they had made a previous statement 

rather than seek their admission, Newnam’s Brief at 17, the inquiry also would 

have been subject to cross-examination by the Commonwealth.

Moreover, Newman’s assertion that trial counsel could not remember 

whether the statements were in the defense file, Newnam’s Brief at 13, cannot 

substitute for a certification from trial counsel as required to warrant an 

evidentiary hearing. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 905(a)(2). The PCRA court noted this 

shortcoming in Newnam’s petition, and thus rejected his claim that the PCRA 

court decided “to conjure up a phantom ‘reasonable basis’” for trial counsel’s 

decision to forgo furnishing the statements to the Commonwealth. Newnam’s 

Brief at 13. 

Finally, Newnam summarizes his claims as follows:

In essence, trial counsel’s failure to disclose or otherwise 

use these witnesses’ pre-trial written statements caused the 

very presentation of these witnesses to backfire. Instead of 

the defense putting forth credible testimony from witnesses 

who were recounting what they had said all along, the 

defense ended up presenting witnesses who undercut the 

defense theory because they seemed wholly incredible in 

light of the Commonwealth’s fabrication argument.
J-S16030-22

- 15 -

Newnam’s Brief at 15. 

This claim ignores trial counsel’s closing in which he turned these 

witnesses’ failure to report to police into a defense argument that the police 

failed to do a complete investigation and that some of the defense witnesses 

did not go to the police because of their drug addictions and other criminal 

issues. See N.T., 8/3/17, at 786-794.

In sum, because the PCRA court correctly concluded that both of 

Newnam’s ineffectiveness claims were meritless, there was no need for an 

evidentiary hearing. We therefore affirm, the court’s order denying Newnam 

post-conviction relief. 

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 07/11/2022