J-S45026-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT

OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

ROBERT MCDOWELL

Appellant No. 2407 EDA 2016

Appeal from the PCRA Order June 30, 2016

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0015492-2008

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED OCTOBER 31, 2017

Robert McDowell (Appellant) appeals from the order entered on June 

30, 2016, which denied his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief 

Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.

On December 20, 2010, a jury convicted Appellant of, inter alia, two 

counts of first-degree murder for his role in the shooting deaths of two 

individuals.1 This Court affirmed Appellant’s judgment of sentence on 

September 9, 2013, and our Supreme Court denied his petition for allowance 

of appeal on April 9, 2014. 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 We adopt the recitation of facts on page 2 of the PCRA court’s opinion as our 

own. See PCRA Court Opinion, 10/21/2016, at 2 (quoting Commonwealth 

v. McDowell, 87 A.3d 374 (Pa. Super. 2013) (unpublished memorandum at 

1)).
J-S45026-17

- 2 -

Appellant timely filed a counseled PCRA petition raising numerous 

ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims for both trial and appellate counsel. 

The PCRA court granted a hearing on one claim, specifically that trial counsel 

was ineffective by giving Appellant legally incorrect information about his right 

to testify. A hearing was held on June 30, 2016, and on the same day, the 

PCRA court entered an order denying Appellant PCRA relief. Appellant timely 

filed a notice of appeal, and both Appellant and the PCRA court complied with 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

On appeal, Appellant has set forth eight questions for our review, see

Appellant’s Brief at 11-12, all of which suggest the PCRA court erred in denying 

relief on Appellant’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims. We review such 

claims mindful of the following.

This Court analyzes PCRA appeals in the light most favorable 

to the prevailing party at the PCRA level. Our review is limited to 

the findings of the PCRA court and the evidence of record and we 

do not disturb a PCRA court’s ruling if it is supported by evidence 

of record and is free of legal error. Similarly, we grant great 

deference to the factual findings of the PCRA court and will not 

disturb those findings unless they have no support in the record. 

However, we afford no such deference to its legal conclusions. 

Where the petitioner raises questions of law, our standard of 

review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary. Finally, we 

may affirm a PCRA court’s decision on any grounds if the record 

supports it.

Commonwealth v. Benner, 147 A.3d 915, 919 (Pa. Super. 2016) (quoting 

Commonwealth v. Perry, 128 A.3d 1285, 1289 (Pa. Super. 2015)). “It is 

well-established that counsel is presumed effective, and the [petitioner] bears 

the burden of proving ineffectiveness.” Commonwealth v. Martin, 5 A.3d 
J-S45026-17

- 3 -

177, 183 (Pa. 2010). To overcome this presumption, Appellant must show 

each of the following: “(1) the underlying substantive claim has arguable 

merit; (2) counsel whose effectiveness is being challenged did not have a 

reasonable basis for his or her actions or failure to act; and (3) the petitioner 

suffered prejudice as a result of counsel’s deficient performance.” Id. 

Appellant’s claim will be denied if he fails to meet any one of these three 

prongs. Id.

Following a review of the certified record and the briefs for the parties, 

we conclude that the opinion of the Honorable Glenn B. Bronson thoroughly 

addresses Appellant’s issues and arguments and applies the correct law to 

findings of fact that are supported by the record. We discern no abuse of 

discretion. Therefore, we adopt the PCRA court’s opinion of October 21, 2016 

as our own and affirm the order denying Appellant PCRA relief based upon the 

reasons stated therein.2 See PCRA Court Opinion, 10/21/2016, at 4-5

(concluding that Appellant waived his right to be represented by original 

counsel and that new counsel was not ineffective in failing to request a 

continuance);3id. at 5-8 (concluding that trial counsel advised Appellant 

properly about his right to testify and therefore was not ineffective);

4

id. at 

____________________________________________

2 The parties shall attach a copy of the PCRA court’s October 21, 2016 opinion 

to this memorandum in the event of further proceedings.

3 See Appellant’s Brief at 24-34.

4 See Appellant’s Brief at 35-40.
J-S45026-17

- 4 -

8-12 (concluding that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to request 

the trial court recuse itself because there was no meritorious basis for doing 

so);5id. at 12-15 (concluding trial counsel was not ineffective by failing to 

object to jury instructions);6id. at 15-17 (concluding trial counsel was not 

ineffective by failing to request a limiting instruction pursuant to Bruton v. 

United States, 391 U.S. 23 (1968), because there was no reasonable 

probability the outcome of the trial would have been different);7id. at 17-20 

(concluding that trial counsel was not ineffective by failing to make nonmeritorious objections regarding prosecutorial misconduct);8

id. at 20-21 

(concluding that claims of appellate counsel ineffectiveness were without 

merit);9 and id. at 21 (concluding that there was no basis for a claim that the 

cumulative effect of all other errors resulted in prejudice).10

Order affirmed. 

President Judge Gantman joins.

Judge Panella concurs in the result.

____________________________________________

5 See Appellant’s Brief at 41-47.

6 See Appellant’s Brief at 54-60.

7 See Appellant’s Brief at 60-62.

8 See Appellant’s Brief at 47-52.

9 See Appellant’s Brief at 52-54.

10 See Appellant’s Brief at 62-63.
J-S45026-17

- 5 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 10/31/2017
Circulated 10/12/2017 12:48 PM