J. S20023/17

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA v. : : MALIK COLLINS, : No. 3815 EDA 2015 : Appellant : Appeal from the PCRA Order, December 4, 2015, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No. CP
- 51 - CR - 0015549 - 2010 BEFORE: BOWES, J., OTT, J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED JUNE 27, 2017 Malik Collins appeals pro se from the December 4, 2015 order dismissing his petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post
- Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541 - 9546. After careful review, we affirm. 1 The PCRA court set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of th is case as follows:

On October 10, 2005, at approximately 8:42 p.m., Philadelphia Police Officers Pollack and Hand received a report of a shooting at 20 th and Diamond Streets in Philadelphia. Upon arrival, they found decedent Hassan Bentley lying in fron t of 2046 N. 20th Street with multiple gunshot wounds to the head and buttocks. Eyewitnesses Jose Briggs and Clarence Milton testified at trial about their observations of [appellant] and accomplices.

1 The Commonwealth filed a brief indicating that it was relying on the r ationale set forth in the PCRA court’s June 28, 2016 opinion. (Commonwealth’s brief at 2.)J. S20023/17

- 2 - Specifically, Jose Briggs, a resident of 2046 N. 20th Street, testified that he, along with several other people including Clarence Milton, Steve Brown and Mr. Bentley, had been outside on the street engaged in drug activity. Positioned at the entrance to the alleyway which opened up next to 2046 N. 20th St reet, Mr. Milton was able to see who entered and exited the block from both directions, as well as anyone present in the driveway. Clarence Martin observed Vincent Segers, also known as “Waters,” driving a blue
- green Grand Cherokee through the section of 20th Street where everyone was gathered. A man identified as Yaku Walls, also known as “P.L.,” was in the front passenger seat and [appellant] was in the backseat of the vehicle as it drove up 20th Street and paused in the middle of the block at 20th and Page before turning the corner. Mr. Segers had previously spoken to Mr. Milton about resuming drug sales in that area, but was told that he was not welcome on that corner, as Mr. Milton, Mr. Brown and Mr. Bentley were conducting their business there. A few minutes after Mr. Segers drove through the crowded block, Mr. Milton observed [appellant] and Mr. Walls emerge from the driveway wearing baseball caps and dickey suits. Mr. Bentley emerged from the alleyway, walking right behind Mr. Brown, as [appella nt] and his accomplice approached and fired a barrage of bullets toward everyone standing outside. Mr. Briggs, standing at the base of the steps in front of his home, observed a man dressed in all black, wearing a black baseball cap with a gold “P” emblaz oned on the front and pulled down low on his face, walk from the driveway and open fire before he fled on foot. Everyone in the area ran away when the shots rang out and they later gathered around the home of Mr. Brown. The group quickly realized that St eve Brown suffered a gunshot wound to his arm and that Mr. Bentley was no longer among them. Several people returned to that area to find Mr. Bentley dying and police officers on the scene. Officers arrived on the scene within minutes of the shooting, an d noticed shell casings on the groundJ. S20023/17

- 3 - from at least two (2) different caliber weapons, a .9 millimeter and a .22 caliber, in the area where Mr. Bentley was slain. It was pouring rain that evening, however officers subsequently recovered fired cartridge ca sings from a .9 millimeter handgun, but they were unable to find any .22 caliber casings. On December 16, 2005, Mr. Briggs gave a statement to police, wherein he described the shooter as a black male, about 5’9”, who weighed about 140
- 165 pounds, brown c omplexion, about 22 - years - old, but was unable to identify the perpetrator. Without additional witnesses, this matter became a “cold case” and remained unsolved for many years. Between June and September of 2008, while facing state and federal charges, Cl arence Milton came forward with information. Mr. Milton identified [appellant] as the shooter and gave a statement to police outlining the events that led to Mr. Bentley’s death. Based on this information, police interviewed Mr. Briggs again, and on Octo ber 2, 2008, he was shown a photographic array wherein he identified [appellant] as the shooter. In that interview, Mr. Briggs went on to state that Mr. Brown was the intended target, purportedly in retaliation for a separate shooting allegedly committed by Mr. Brown. Based on the information gathered during the investigation, an arrest warrant for [appellant] was prepared by Detective Kelhower and [appellant] was arrested on January 21, 2010. PCRA court opinion, 6/28/16 at 3
- 5, quoting trial court opini on, 5/9/13 at 1 - 4 (citations to notes of testimony and footnote omitted). On November 20, 2012, appellant proceeded to a jury trial and was found guilty of first
- degree murder, criminal conspiracy, and possessing an instrument of crime. 2 On November 26, 2012, the trial court sentenced

2 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502, 903, and 907, respectively.J. S20023/17

- 4 -

appellant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, followed by a consecutive term of 221⁄2 to 50 years’ imprisonment. On November 7, 2013, a panel of this court affirmed appellant’s judgment of sentence, and ou r supreme court denied his petition for allowance of appeal on May 13, 2014. See Commonwealth v. Collins , 91 A.3d 1275 (Pa.Super. 2013), appeal denied , 91 A.3d 1238 (Pa. 2014). 3 On December 2, 2014, appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition and Stephen T. O ’Hanlon, Esq. (“PCRA counsel”) was appointed to represent him. PCRA counsel did not file an amended petition on appellant’s behalf. On August 10, 2015, PCRA counsel filed a “no
- merit” letter and a petition to withdraw, in accordance with Commonwealth v. Turner , 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), and Commonwealth v. Finley , 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super. 1988) ( en banc ). On October 30, 2015, the PCRA court provided appellant with notice of its intention to dismiss his petition without a hearing, pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 9 07(1). Thereafter, on December 4, 2015, the PCRA court granted PCRA counsel’s petition to withdraw and dismissed appellant’s petition without a hearing. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal on December 10, 2015. 4

3 The record reflects that a ppellant was represented at trial and on direct appeal by Michael E. Wallace, Esq. ( hereinafter, “counsel”).
4 The PCRA court did not order appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, in accordance with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Nonetheless, appellant has attached a Rule 1925(b) statement to his appellate brief, al though the docket is unclear as to whether this statementJ. S20023/17

- 5 -

On appeal, appellant raises the fol lowing issues challenging the ineffectiveness of counsel:

1. Did the PCRA Court error [sic], denying [a]ppellant an evidentiary hearing Ad Subjiciendum
--- where [counsel] rendered deficient, where counsel failed to [ad]equately [in]vestigate and challenge t he Probable cause? 2. Did the PCRA Court error [sic], denying [a]ppellant a Writ of Habeas Corpus for evidentiary hearing Ad Subjiciendum
--- where [counsel] rendered ineffective, where counsel failed to object and [pre]serve the Commonwealth’s recharging A ppellate [sic] without arrest or Miranda warnings? 3. Did the PCRA Court error [sic] where it denied [a]ppellant an evidentiary hearing Ad Subjiciendum
--- where [counsel] was ineffective; where the trial [c]ourt abused it’s [sic] discretion denying [a]ppel lant an arrest of judgment pursuant to the conviction of, Murder in the first degree; Possession of Instrument of Crime, and Conspiracy; where the evidence introduced was based on pure speculation and conj[e]cture? 4. Did the PCRA Court error [sic] in not affording appellant an evidentiary hearing, where [counsel] rendered deficient; where counsel had failed to challenge and [pre]serve the Commonwealth’s Prosecutorial Misconduct; where the Prosecuting Attorney failed to (est)ablish the mens rea for first d egree Murder and related charge(s)?

was ever filed. ( See appellant’s brief at Exhibit A.) On June 28, 2016, the PCRA court issued an opinion addressing appellant’s claims.J. S20023/17

- 6 - 5. Did the PCRA Court error [sic] in not granting [a]ppellant an evidentiary Ad Subjiciendum where, [counsel] rendered ineffective; where he failed to raise and [pre]serve the Prosecution[’]s witnesses’ testimony’s [sic ] being inconsistent and of perjury? 6. Did the PCRA Court error [sic]
--- denying [a]ppellant an evidentiary hearing Ad Subjiciendum where [counsel] was ineffective; where he failed to [ad]equately cross - examine the Prosecution’s witnesses’ [sic] Clarence Milton, who’s [sic] testimony was based on perjury of what he observed to [a]ppellant being the SHOOTER, which if counsel would have thoroughly [in]vestigated the tier [sic] of facts, it would have been seen that Mr. Milton was incarcerated on the [date] in question? 7. Did the PCRA court err in not affording [a]ppellant a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum for evidentiary; where [counsel] was ineffective; where he failed to investigate, find and call character witnesses’ [sic] of, Willie Bell, whom [s ic] was incarcerated in Philadelphia County Prison at [C.F.C.F.] on the [date] that, Clarence Milton testified too that he had observed [a]ppellant SHOOT the victim? 8. Did the PCRA Court error [sic] not granting Appellate [sic] an evidentiary Hearing Ad Subjiciendum
--- where [counsel] failed to raise and [pre]serve the Prosecutor’s witness Jose Briggs, whose testimony was that, [a]ppellant was not at the scene. This was why the case was originally dismissed? 9. Did the PCRA Court error [sic] not affordin g [a]ppellant a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum for evidentiary hearing

--- where [counsel] rendered deficient onJ. S20023/17

- 7 - Appellate review in not raising the aforewith [sic] [claims] (1
- 9)? 10. Did the PCRA Court error [sic] not affording [a]ppellant an evid entiary hearing Ad Subjiciendum
--- where [counsel] was ineffective on Appellate review, where counsel deficiently LIED stating; [J]ose Briggs stated, appellant was not present at Murder, when Mr. Briggs testified initially quite oppositely and where charges were initially dismissed? Appellant’s brief at 4
- 5 (internal quotation marks omitted; citation omitted; capitalization and some bracketed text in original). Proper appellate review of a PCRA court’s dismissal of a PCRA petition is limited to the examina tion of “whether the PCRA court’s determination is supported by the record and free of legal error.” Commonwealth v. Miller , 102 A.3d 988, 992 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citation omitted). “The PCRA court’s findings will not be disturbed unless there is no suppor t for the findings in the certified record.” Commonwealth v. Lawson , 90 A.3d 1, 4 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citations omitted). “This Court grants great deference to the findings of the PCRA court, and we will not disturb those findings merely because the record could support a contrary holding.” Commonwealth v. Hickman , 799 A.2d 136, 140 (Pa.Super. 2002) (citation omitted). Where the PCRA court has dismissed a petitioner’s petition without an evidentiary hearing, as was the case here, we review the PCRA court’ s decision for an abuse of discretion. See Commonwealth v. Roney , 79J. S20023/17

- 8 -

A.3d 595, 604 (Pa. 2013), cert. denied , 135 S.Ct. 56 (2014) (citation omitted). Moreover,

the right to an evidentiary hearing on a post - conviction petition is not absolute. It is with in the PCRA court’s discretion to decline to hold a hearing if the petitioner’s claim is patently frivolous and has no support either in the record or other evidence. It is the responsibility of the reviewing court on appeal to examine each issue raised i n the PCRA petition in light of the record certified before it in order to determine if the PCRA court erred in its determination that there were no genuine issues of material fact in controversy and in denying relief without conducting an evidentiary hear ing. Commonwealth v. Wah , 42 A.3d 335, 338 (Pa.Super. 2012) (internal citations omitted). Instantly, all ten of appellant’s claims challenge the effectiveness of counsel. To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under the PCRA, a petit ioner must plead and prove 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.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2)(ii). Specific ally, a petitioner must establish that “the underlying claim has arguable merit; second, that counsel had no reasonable basis for his action or inaction; and third, that Appellant was prejudiced.” Commonwealth v. Charleston , 94 A.3d 1012, 1020 (Pa.Super. 2014), appeal denied , 104 A.3d 523 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted). “[C]ounsel is presumed to be effective and the burden of demonstrating ineffectiveness rests on appellant.” Commonwealth v.J. S20023/17

- 9 -

Ousley , 21 A.3d 1238, 1242 (Pa.Super. 2011), appeal denied , 30 A .3d 487 (Pa. 2011) (citation omitted). Additionally, we note that “counsel cannot be held ineffective for failing to pursue a meritless claim[.]” Commonwealth v. Hall , 867 A.2d 619, 632 (Pa.Super. 2005), appeal denied , 895 A.2d 549 (Pa. 2006). After a t horough review of the record, including the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well
- reasoned opinion of the PCRA court, it is our determination that appellant’s ineffectiveness claims warrant no relief. The PCRA court comprehensively discu ssed the ten ineffectiveness claims briefed by appellant and concluded that they were either meritless or not properly developed. ( See PCRA court opinion, 6/28/16 at 6
- 15.) We have reviewed the record in its entirety and have considered the merit of appe llant’s arguments. Following our careful consideration, we find that the PCRA court’s conclusions are supported by competent evidence and are clearly free of legal error. Accordingly, we adopt the PCRA court’s June 28, 2016 opinion as our own. 5

5 We recognize that in addressing appellant’s claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate, find, and call character witnesses on his behalf, the PCRA court indicated that appellant failed to attach to his petition an affidavit from each possible witness. ( See PCRA court opinion, 6/28/16 at 11 .) However, in Commonwealth v. Pander , 100 A.3d 626, 640
- 642 (Pa.Super. 2014) ( en banc ), this court held that a request for an evidentiary hearing under the PCRA did not require affidavits from witnesses. Rather, this court held that statements from a pr o se petitioner or his attorney as to the substance of each witness’s testimony would satisfy the PCRA. Notwithstanding the PCRA court’s error, we find that theJ. S20023/17

- 10 -

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the PCRA court’s December 4, 2015 order dismissing appellant’s petition. Order affirmed.
Ott, J. joins this Memorandum. Bowes, J. concurs in the result. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 6/27/2017

dismissal of appellant’s claim was proper given the fact that appellant has provided no statem ents of any potential witnesses.

### JUN 2 8 

### 20 1 6 

## Criminal App e als 

## Un i t First Judicial District of P A Page 1 of 15 Commw
. v. Malik Collins i nte n t to dismiss on October 30 , 2015. This court al so granted counsel's motion to w i th draw. The 

# FILED an d i ndependentl y determi n i n g that there were no meritorious issues, th i s court i ssued a notice of Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 ( P a . Super. 1 988)
. After reviewing counsel's Finley letter as counse l. On August 10, 2015, appointed counsel filed a letter in accordance with Convictio n Re l ief Act (" P CRA"). Shortly thereafter, Stephen T. O'Hanlon, Esquire was appo i nted O n December 2, 2014, petitioner fi l ed a pro se petition seeki ng re li ef under the P ost for allowance of appeal was denied by the Supreme Court. affirm ed peti ti oner ' s judgment of sentence on November 7, 2013. On May 13, 2014, h i s petition in accordance w i th P ennsylvania Rule of Appellate P rocedure 1925(a). The Superi or Court petitio n er filed a notice of appeal to the Superior Court. On May 9, 2013, this court fi l ed an opinion impri sonme n t for twenty
- two and one - half (22 Yl) to fifty (50) years. On November 28, 2012, sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, with a consecutive term of crimi n al co n sp i racy, and possessing instruments of crime ( PI C). On that date, petitioner was On November 26, 2012, a jury convicted petitioner Malik Collins of first

- degree murder , J une 28, 2016 Byrd, J. OPI N IO N 3815 EDA 2015



## 1111111111111111111111111 7466315421 MALIK COLLINS SUPERIOR COURT C P - 5 1 - CR
- 001554 9 - 2 010 C o m m v . C o llin s . M al i k

O puuoo v. C P- 51

- CR

- 0015549

- 2010 COMMONWEAL TH OF P ENNSYLVAN I A I N TH E COU RT OF C OM M O N P LEAS OF PHI LA D E LPHI A CO UN TY

C RI M I N AL TRIA L DIVISIO N Circulated 05/30/2017 09:41 AMP age 2 of 1 5

Commw . v. Malik Collin s I Th e followin g i s a v e rbatim r e c it ation of th e i ss ue s r ai s ed in defendant ' s pro se P C RA p e ti tio n . 7
. Trial co un s e l Mr. Wallace wa s i neffecti ve fo r fai l in g to in ve s ti gate , fi n d an d ca ll charac t e r a n d de f e n s e wi tn e ss , W ill ie Be ll , who wa s i n carcerated in th e P hiladel p hia Co u n ty pri s o n ( s ) of CFCF on th e [ d at e ] Clar ence Milton te s ti fied too th at he had ob s erve d the p eti ti o n e r s hoot the v i cti m o n th e [ d at e ] of , [ l O il 0/0 5]. 6. Tri al co u n s e l Mr. Wa ll ace r e n de r ed in e ff ecti ve w h ere co un s el d id
" n ot " p roperly cro ss -exam ine th e Co mm o n wealth( s ) w i tn e ss Clare n ce M i lt o n , w h o( s ) t e s ti m ony wa s ba s ed of pe r j ury of w h at h e had ob s erved i n refere n ce to p etiti o n er be i ng the s hooter , i n w hi ch if cou n s el wou l d h ave in ve s tigated ; th e true tier of [fact ] wo ul d have de m o n s tr ate d th at th e Co mm o n wea lth( s ) witn e ss , C l are n ce M i lt o n wa s i n car cerated o n the [dat e ] of the " a ll eged " cri m e on ; [ 1 Oil 0/ 2 00 5 ]. 5. T rial co u n s e l M r. Wallace wa s i n effec tive w h e r e cou n s e l ha d fail e d to rai s e and pre s erve the Co mm o n wea lth ( s ) w i tne ss e( s ) te s ti m o n y bei n g i n con s i s te n t an d of perj u ry. 4. Tri al co un s e l Mr. Wall ace re n dered i n e ff ecti ve , whe r e co un s e l , in h i s de fi c i en t p erfo rm an ce " faile d " t o c h all enge , and pre s e rved th e Com m o n wea l th (s ) , p ro s ec ut ori al m isco n d u c t whe r e th e Com m onwea lth f

ai l ed to [ e s t ] abli s h th e r eq u i r ed and nece ss ary m e n rea to have [e s t ] ab l ished th at p eti tione r had co mm itted [fir s t ] deg r ee mu r d er an d r elated c h arge[ s ]
. 3. Trial co un s e l wa s i n e ff ecti ve , whe r e the Co u rt had mani fe s tl y ab u s e d i t ( s ) di s cretio n i n a s mu c h as to de n y pe ti tio n er an arr e s t o f j u dgme n t i n r egard t o the conv i cti on for mu r de r i n th e [ fir s t ] deg r ee , and p o ss e ss i ng an i n s trum e n t of crim e , an d c ri mi n al co n s p i r acy , w h e r e th e evi d e n ce i n trod u ced wa s b a s e d on s pec u lation an d pu r e co n jecture. 2
. Trial co un sel Mr. Wa lla ce wa s i n e ff ecti ve , w h ere co un s el " failed " to o b jec t , arg u e and ( rai s e) th e Co mm onwea l th re-charg i n g pe titi o n er w i thout arre s t , or Miran da-warn ing( s ). 1
. T rial co u n se l M r. Mic h ael E. Wall ace wh o s u b s eq u en tl wa s pe titi o n er( s ) ap pellate co un s el r e nd e red i n effecti ve a ss i s t an ce w h ere co un s el " failed " to th o r o u ghly i n ve s ti gat e and c h alle n ge probab l e cau s e. p ro s e n oti ce o f ap p eal. H ere , p etiti oner h as rai sed th e fo ll owi n g i s s u es: 1 p eti tio n wa s fo rm all y di s mi ss ed o n Decemb er 4 , 20 1 5. On Dece mber 1 0 , 2 01 5 , pe ti tio n er fi l ed aP age 3 of 15

Com m w . v . Malik Collin s

O n O ctobe r 1 0 , 2005 , at ap p roxi m ately 8: 4 2 p . m . , P hiladel p h i a P o li ce Officers P ollack and H and rece i ved a repo rt of a shooti ng at 20 1 h and D iam ond Streets i n P hiladel p hia. (N. T. , 1 1 / 20/12 p p . 5 1 -52). U p o n arrival , th ey fou n d decede n t H assa n B e ntl ey l ying i n fro n t of 2046 N. 20th Str eet wi th mu ltiple g un s h o t wo un ds to th e h ead an d b u ttocks. (N .T ., 1 1 / 20/12 p . 52). E yew i tnesses Jose B riggs an d Clar e n ce Milt on testified at tri al abo u t thei r o b servations of defendant a n d accomp li ces. S pe c ifi cally , Jose Bri gg s, a r esi d e n t of20 4 6 N. 2 0th Street , tes ti fi ed th at h e , al o n g w i th seve r al oth er p eo p le i nclud i n g Clar e n ce Mi l to n , Steve Brown an d M r. B entl ey , h ad been ou t s i de o n the str ee t e n gage d in dru g ac tiv i ty. (N. T. , 1 1120/12 p p. 91-92 , 196). P ositio n ed at th e entr ance to th e all eyway which ope n e d up n ext t o 2 0 46 N
. 20th Str eet , Mr. Mi l t on was able t o see who e n tered and exited th e b lock fr o m both d i r ecti o n s , as well as a n yone p resent i n the driveway. (N.T. , 1 1 / 20/12 p. 223). C l ar e n ce Martin o b se r ve d Vincen t Segers , al so kno wn as " Waters ," driv i n g a bl ue - gree n G r and C h erokee th ro u gh the sec tion of 20 th Str ee t whe r e everyo n e was gathe r e d
. (N. T
. , 1 1 / 20/12 p . 1 92)
. A man ide n ti fied as Yaku Walls , al so kn o wn as " P .L. ," was i n th e fro n t p asse n ge r seat a n d d efenda n t Mal ik Co ll i ns was in th e b ackseat of th e v e h i cle as it drove u p 20 th Str eet and paused in th e mid dl e o f the b l ock at 20th and P age befo r e turn ing the co m er. (N.T. , 11 / 20/12 p . 19 8)
. T h e fo ll owi n g fac t s were s um marized i n th is co urt ' s May 9 , 20 1 3 l 925 ( a) o p i n io n : S T A T E M EN T OF F A CTS 10. Tri al/ap p ellat e cou n se l M r. Wall ace re n de r e d i neffec tive at ap p ellat e [ rev i ew] w h ere he had erro n eously lied by stati n g at hi s [ m ae] a n d fil ed brief s t atin g ; Jose Brigg(s) stat e d p eti tio n er was pr ese n t at the mu r de r . whe n the tes ti m o n y of Mr. B ri g[s] was o pp osi t e and th e c h ar ge]s] were i ni tially d ismissed. 9. Tri al cou n sel Mr. W all ace , who was appe ll ate co un se l r endered ineffecti ve representati o n w h ere o n ap pellate [review], cou n se l had
" n ot " [ r ai sed] the forew i th [i ss i e]. M r. Wallace had [raised] o n e si n gle [ i ss u e ]
. 8. Trial co u nsel , M r . Wallace was in effec tive at trial whe r e co u n se l fai l e d to rai se an d p reserve w i tn ess J ose B rigg(s) , w h o ( s) testim o n y was ; " the petitio n er " was not at the sce n e of the ( said ] c ri m e. Subseq u e n tly , this was th e r easo n th e case got di s m isse d th e fi rst ti m e.Page 4 of 15

Commw. v. Malik Collins 2 At trial , M r. Bri ggs de ni ed that he i n fact s i gned the photo array. (N .T. , 11 / 20/12 p. 126)
. However , Detecti ve K elhower , who took M r. B ri ggs ' s stateme n t, testi fied to his i denti fication. (N.T
. , 11/21/12 p . 161)
. The jury was g i ve n th e o p portu n ity to v i ew th e s i gnatu r es above and below the photographs on the array and dete rmine Mr. Briggs's c r edib i l i ty r egard ing h is de n ial.

Mr. Sege r s had previously spo k e n to Mr. M i lto n about res u mi n g drug sales in that area, b u t was told th at he was n ot welcome on th at corne r , as Mr. Milton, M r. Brown an d M r . B e n tley were co n ducting their b u si n ess th ere. (N.T., 1 1 /2 0/12 pp . 2 1 7- 1 9). A few mi n utes afte r M r. Sege r s drove throug h the crowded bloc k , M r. Mil t o n o b serve d defe n dant an d Mr. Wa ll s emerge from the driveway wearin g baseball caps an d dickey su i ts . (N .T. , 1 1/20/ 1 2 p. 204)
. Mr. B en tley e m erged from th e alleyway, wal ki n g ri ght b e h i n d M r. B rown, as defe n dant an d hi s acco mplice approac h ed and fired a barr age of bullets toward everyone stand i ng outside. (N.T., 11 /20/12 p . 204)
. M r. Briggs, stand in g at the base of the steps i n front of h is h o m e, observed a man dressed in all blac k , wearing a bla c k baseba ll cap w ith a gold " P " emb l azo n ed on the fro n t and pull ed down l ow on his face, wal k fro m th e dri veway and open fi r e b efo r e h e fled on foot. (N .T. , 1 1 /20/ 12 pp . 94-96)
. Eve ryo n e i n the area ran away when the s h o t s rang ou t an d th ey lat e r gath e r ed arou n d th e home of Mr. B rown. (N .T ., 11/20/ 12 p. 98). The group quickly real ize d th at Steve B row n s u ffe r ed a gu n s h ot wou n d to hi s arm and that Mr. B entl ey was no l onger among th em. (N .T ., 11 / 20/12 pp. 99, 204). Several peop l e returned t o th at ar ea to fin d M r. B e n tl ey dy i ng a nd p o li ce officers on th e scene. (N.T., 11/2 0/12 p. 99). Officers arrived on the scene wi thi n mi nutes of th e shooti n g, an d n o ticed s h e ll casi n gs on th e grou nd from at l east two (2) different cal i b e r weap ons, a .9 millimeter and a .22 cali b er, in the area where Mr. B e ntl ey was slai n. (N.T
. , 1 1 / 2 1 / 22 p . 111 ) . It was pouri ng rain th at evening, h owever officers su b seque n tly recove r ed fi red cartrid ge c a si n gs fr o m a . 9 mill i m eter handg u n, b u t they were unable t o fin d any .22 cali b er casings. (N.T., 11/21 / 1 2 p . 1 1 3)
. O n D ecember 16, 2 0 05, Mr. B riggs gave a s t at e m e n t to police, w h erein h e descri b ed th e shooter as a b l ack male, about 5'9", w h o we i ghed abo u t 14 0-165 pounds, brow n complexion, ab o u t 22- years-o ld , but was u nable t o ide n tify th e perpetrator. (N .T ., 11 / 20/ 1 2 p . 10 4 )
. Wi th ou t add i ti o nal witn esses, this matter b ecame a "co l d case" an d remained unso l ved fo r m any years . B etwee n Ju n e an d Septembe r of 200 8 , while facing state and federal charges, C l ar e n ce Mi l ton came forward wi th i n formati o n. (N .T. , 11/2 0/12 p p . 1 85)
. M r. Mil t on identified defendant as th e shooter and gave a state m e n t to police o u tl ining th e events th at l ed to M r. B entley's d eath. (N.T., 1 1/20/ 1 2 pp. 1 85-90). B ased on this i nformation, po li ce i nterviewed Mr. B riggs again, an d o n O ctobe r 2, 20 0 8, he was s h ow n a p h otograph i c array w h e r ein he identi fi ed defendant as the s h oo t er. (N.T
. , 1 1 /21 / 1 2 pp . 1 56, 161). 2 I n that interview, Mr.P age 5 of 15

Commw
. v . Malik Collins assistance of counsel amounts to consti tuti onal mal practice where co u nsel's incompetence Clayton , 572 Pa
. 395, 8 1 6 A.2d 217 (2002). U nde r the PCRA , an allegati on of ineffective ineffectiveness claim, not th e u n derl ying erro r at trial , which is reviewed
. See Commonwealth v. adjudicatio n of g u ilt o r i nnocence co u ld have take n p l ace. 4 2 P a. C
. S. § 95 4 3(a)(2)(ii)
. It is the circ u mstances of th e parti cu l ar case, so undermined the truth

- determining process that no r eliable a conviction or sentence r es u lted from ineffective ass i stance of co u nsel which, in the A petitioner may be entitl ed to relief under the P CRA if he is ab l e to plead an d prove that P CRA). Commonwealth v. Ligons, 601 Pa
. 103 , 971 A
. 2d 1 1 25 (2009). circumstances found at 42 Pa. C
. S. § 9543(a)(2) (setti ng forth th e e li gib i l i ty req u irements of the the evidence that his conviction or sentence res ul ted from one or more of the enumerated 9545(b )(3 ). A peti tio n e r i s elig i ble for rel i ef u nde r the PCRA i f he proves by a preponderance of peti ti one r 's judgme n t of sente n ce becomes final. 42 Pa
. C.S
. § 9545(b )(I) ; 42 Pa
. C.S
. § P CRA petitions, incl u ding second and subsequent petitions within o n e ( 1 ) year from the date Commonwealth v . Rivers , 567 P a . 239, 786 A.2d 923 (2001)
. A petitioner i s entitled to file all they ar e n ot me r e l y di r ect appeal claims that ar e made at a later stage of the judicial proceed i ngs . C l aims pu r suan t to the PCRA are extraord i nary assertio n s that the j u dic i al system failed , however , co n victed of crimes they did n ot commit and to those se rv i ng i llegal sente n ces . 42 Pa. C.S. § 9542. The Post Convicti on Re li ef Act ( " P CRA " ) affords collateral relief to those ind i viduals DI SCUSSIO

N Briggs went on to state that Mr. Brown was the intended target, purportedly i n r etal iati on fo r a separate shooting allegedly commi tted by M r. Brow n . (N
. T. , 11 / 21/12 p . 157)
. Based on the i nformation gathe r ed durin g th e i n vesti gati o n , an arrest warrant for defendant was prepared by Detective Ke l hower and defe n dant was arrested on January 21 , 2010
. (N
. T. 11 / 21/12 p . 183)
.Pa ge 6 of 1 5

Co mm w . v. M

al ik Co lli ns d e pri v ed a defendan t of his S i x th Ame nd me n t rig ht to cou n sel. See St r ickland v . Wa s hington , 466 U.S
. 668 ( 1 98 4 ); Co mm onwe a lth v . W illia m s, 566 Pa
. 553 , 782 A
. 2 d 5 1 7 (2 0 0 1 ). The l aw r eq uire s the p r e sump tion th at c o u n se l was effective unl ess th e pe ti ti on er ca n fu l fi ll his burd e n and p rov e o therwise
. See Co mm o n wea lth v. Payne , 794 A
. 2 d 9 0 2 ( P a . Su p e r. 2 0 02 )
. T o pr e vail o n an in e ff ecti v e assis t an ce of co u n sel claim, p etition e r b ear s th e burd e n of d e mon s tratin g : "( l ) th e und e rl y in g cl ai m i s o f arg u able m e ri t; (2) th at co un sel h ad no r eas on ab l e
s trat eg ic ba s i s for hi s or her action or ina c tion ; and (3 ) b u t for th e err o r s a nd omiss ion s o f c oun se l , th e r e i s a r easo n abl e p robability that th e ou tc om e of the p ro ce e d i n gs w o uld ha ve b e en di ff er e n t. " Common wea lth v. K

e r s tete r , 87 7 A
. 2 d 466 , 4 68 ( Pa. Sup e r 2 006 )
. F urthermore , c oun se l ' s c hoic es
c anno t be e valuated in hind s i g ht , b u t rath e r should b e exa mi n ed i n li g h t o f th e c ir c um st an ces at that tim e. S ee Co mm onwealt h v . H a rdc a stl e, 54 9 Pa. 4 5 0 , 7 0 1 A. 2 d 5 41 ( 1 9 9 7). E ve n if th e r e
wa s no re as on abl e ba s i s for c oun se l ' s co ur se of cond u ct , a p e titioner i s not e ntitl e d t o r e lie f if h e fail s t o d e mon s trat e prejudic e . See Comm o n weal th v. D ouglas , 5 3 7 P a. 5 8 8, 6 4 5 A. 2d 22 6 ( 19 9 4 )
. In thi s ca se, peti ti o n e r fir st claim s th at trial co u n se l was i n eff e cti ve fo r fai lin g " t o th orou g hl y i n v e s ti gat e a nd c h a ll e n g e prob able cau s e. " P e titioner 's Dec e mb e r 2 , 2 014 P C RA P etiti o n. How ev er , there w a s pr obabl e cau s e t o arre s t C olli n s ba s ed on e vid e nc e obtai ned fro m ey e w i tne s se s who w e re pre se n t w h e n th e s h o oti ng oc c urr e d. In Co mm onweal th v. R oge r s , 6 1 5 A. 2 d 55 ( Pa. S up e r. 1 992), the c ou rt e x p lai n e d that " [tjh e test in thi s C o m m on wea l th for determining wheth e r probabl e c aus e ex i sts for th e iss u an c e o f an arr e s t w arran t i s th e ' to tali ty of the circum s t a nc e s .' " I

d. at 6 2 ( ci tin g Illin o i s v . Ga tes , 4 62 U.S
. 2 1 3 (1 98 3)
. Th e court fu rth er not e d that " [i]n d e t e rmining w h e th e r pro b abl e c au se e xists , a ma gis trate is n o t re qui re d t o fi n d a
s h ow in g of c riminal ac ti v i ty; m e r e pr o b abili ty o f s u c h cri min al acti v ity i s s uffi c i e n t fo r p ro b ab le
cau se . " Id. ( ci tin g Co mm onwealt h v . G r ay, 46 9 A. 2 d 1 69 , 1 73 ( P a . Sup e r. 19 83))
. Mo r e ov e r, " th eP age 7 of 1 5

Commw
. v. Malik Collins Th u s , pe ti ti o n e r was n o t prejudiced as a result of counse l ' s alleged i n ac tion because there wa s no I n th is case , the r ecord does not reflec t that any statement was elicited from peti ti oner. To safeguar d an u n counseled individu a l's F i fth Amendme n t p ri vilege agai n st se l f

- i n cri mi nati o n , suspects subjec t to custodial interrogation by l a w e n fo r cem ent offic er s must be warned that they h a ve the right t o remain si l ent , th at an y thi ng they say may be used against them in court, and th at they are en ti tl ed t o th e pr e se n c e of an attorney. Juve n iles , as well as adul t s , are en ti tl ed to b e ap p ri sed of their constitu ti o n al rig ht s pursuan t t o Miranda
. I f a pe r son i s n ot advised of his Miranda ri g h t s p rio r to cus t odial i n t e rr ogation by law e n fo r ce m e nt officers , evidence resu l ting from suc h in t e rr ogation cannot be used again st h i m . A perso n is dee m ed t o b e i n custody for M iranda purposes when [ he] i s ph ys i cally denied of h i s freedom of ac tion in any significant way or is p laced in a si tuation in which he reasonab l y believes that his freedom of acti on o r m ovemen t i s res tricte d by the interrogation
. In re R
. H. , 56 8 P a. 1 , 5

- 6 , 79 1 A
. 2d 331 , 333 (2002) (pl u rality) (citations and quotation omi tted)
. Peti ti on e r ' s D ecembe r 2 , 2014 P CRA P etitio n . I n r elation to Miranda warnings : pr es e rve th e Commonw e al th's r e- charging p e tition e r without arr est or Miranda warnings given ." P e ti tio n er's seco n d claim is that trial counse l was ineffec tive for failing t o " objec t an d e xist e nc e of p robab l e cause)
. T hus, peti tioner ' s cl aim l acks ar guab l e meri t. " [ t]he r e i s a s u bs t a ntial b as i s for credi ti n g th e i nfo rmati o n of an eyew i tness " i n d etermi n i n g the See a lso Commonwealth v . Irving , 4 8 5 P a. 596 , 601, 403 A.2d 549 , 551 (1979) (holding that M ack gav e a descriptio n of the shooter that matched Co ll ins ' s physical appearance. Id. at 183
. a car i n the area where the shooti ng t ook p l ace . (N
. T. , 1 1 / 2 1 / 20 1 2 , at 94-95 , 1 7 5)
. Further , Se l ena 1 1/20/ 20 1 2 , at 11 8, 1 2 1 ; 11 / 21/2012, at 161)
. Michael Fon t aine stated that Colli n s was ri d i ng in 1 1 / 20/ 20 1 2 , at 202-205, 22 8 -229)
. Jose B riggs identified Co ll ins as th e s h oo t er to po li ce. (N .T
. , 484 A.2d 13 8 3 (1984))
. C l arence Mi l ton identified Collins as the shoo t e r to po l ice. (N .T. , no n technical, ungrudgi n g and positive manner." Id. (citing Commonwealth v . Jone s, 506 P a . 262, i n formation off

er ed t o demo n strat e probable cause mus t be v i ewed i n " a common sense ,P age 8 of 15

Commw. v . Malik Colli n s acti o n th at wo u l d h ave ac hi eved a favorable resu l t t o pe ti ti on er i n th is co n text. Acc or d i ngly, pe titio n e r ' s cl a im is witho u t merit. P eti ti o n e r ' s third cl aim is th at tri al cou n se l r e nd e r ed i n effective assis tan ce of co un sel

" w h e r e th e Co u rt h a d m an i f estly ab u sed its discreti on -i n asmu c h as to d e n y pe ti tion er an ' arr es t o f j ud gme n t ' i n regar d to th e co n victio n for murder in th e fir s t-d egre e , and p o ssess in g an i n stru m en t of crime , a nd cri min al co n s p iracy , w h ere th e ev id e n ce i n tro d uce d was base d o n spec ulati o n an d
co n jec tur e. " P etitio n e r ' s D ece mb er 2 , 2014 P C RA P eti tio n . In ruli n g o n a m oti o n i n arr est o f j ud gme n t, the court mu s t eval u ate the su ffi c i e n cy of th e evi d ence . See Commonwealth v . Meadow s, 4 71 P a. 201 , 369 A.2 d 1266 (1977 )
. I n eval u ati n g wheth e r th e evi d e n ce was s u ffic i e nt to s u s t a in a co n vic tio n , the appellate co urt " mus t view th e e vi d e n c e i n th e li g h t m ost fa vo rab le to th e Co mm o n wealth a s ve rd ict winn er , accep t a s tru e a ll th e evi d ence and a ll r easo n abl e i n fere n ces
u po n w hi c h , i f beli e ve d , the jury co u l d p roperly have base d its verdict , and d e t e rmi ne w h eth e r
s u c h ev i de n ce and i n fe r e n c e s ar e s u fficient i n law t o p rove guilt beyo nd a r easo nab le d o u b t. " Commonwealth v . Tate , 4 85 P a . 180 , 182 , 4 01 A.2 d 353 , 354 ( 1 9 7 9 )
. In ap pl y in g thi s tes t , " th e
e nti r e r eco r d mu s t be ev al u ate d an d all evide n ce ac tu ally receive d mus t b e cons id ered ." Commonweal t

h v. D iStefano, 7 8 2 A.2 d 574 , 5 8 2 ( P a . S u pe r. 2001 ) ( quo ti n g Commonwealth v . Hennigan , 753 A.2 d 2 4 5 , 253 ( Pa
. Super. 2000)). In Common w ealth v . Co s ta
- Hernandez, 80 2 A
. 2 d 671 , 675 ( P a. S up er. 2002 ), the cou rt recog ni zed th at th e " q u estio n of an y d ou bt reg ar d in g the fac t s a nd c ir c um stances establis h ed by the Comm on wealth is for th e fact-fi nd e r to r esolve unl ess the evi d e n ce i s so weak an d i n co n cl u s i ve that , as a m atter of law, n o p rob abili ty of fa ct c an be dr awn from th e co mbi ned ci r cu m st an ces . " Th e appe ll ate c o urt may n o t we i g h th e ev i dence and
s u bstitu t e i t s j ud g m e n t fo r th e fact

- fi nd er. Commonwealth v. Taylor , 831 A.2d 661 ( Pa
. S uper. 2003 )
. Furth e r , " i t i s fo r the fact fi n der to m ake cre d i bili ty d etermi natio n s , and th e find er o f factP age 9 o f 1 5

Commw
. v. Malik Collins m ay b e l ieve a ll , part o r n o n e o f a witness ' s testimo n y. " Commonwealth v . Mack , 8 50 A.2 d 69 0 , 693 ( P a. S u pe r. 2004). Thi s issue was dec id ed by th e Supe ri o r Cou rt whe n it affi rm ed peti ti o n er ' s judg m en t o f

se n te n ce on Novembe r 7 , 20 1 3. I ndeed , th e S u pe rior Court rev i ewe d peti ti o n e r ' s su f ficie n cy cl aims o n ap p eal an d de t e rmi ned th at th e Commonwealth prese n te d sufficien t eviden c e provi n g beyo n d a re a so nab l e do u bt Coll in s was guil ty o f c ommitting fi r s t
- d eg r ee mu rd er , c rimi na l

co n spiracy , and possessi n g a n i n strum en t o f c ri me. See S u pe ri o r Court Nove mber 7 , 20 1 3 , D ocke t No. 3300 E D A 20 1 2. I n Commonweal t h v . Howard

, 553 P a. 226 , 280-2 8 1 , 7 1 9 A.2 d 233 , 2 40 ( 1998) , th e co urt h eld th at a petitio n er " i s p r ecl u ded fr om rai s in g a clai m o f post-co n vic tio n r eview th at was pr eviously a n d fin ally li tigat ed o n di rect appeal
.... F urthe r , an ap pe ll an t cannot ob t ai n
co llate r al r ev i ew o f p r evio u s l y l i tigated claims by a ll eging ineffec tive ass i stance of prio r cou n sel

an d p r ese nti n g new th eo ri es of r el i ef. " In l i g h t of the Superior Court ' s affirm ance o f p e ti ti o n e r ' s ju dg m e n t of se nt e n ce , th e r e i s n o b a sis fo r th e conte n ti o n that th e co n v i cti o n was base d on specul atio n o r co n

jectu r e. T h e r efore , petitio n er ' s clai m o f i n effectiveness h as n o meri t and mu s t be r ejecte d
. P e ti tio n e r ' s fo u rth clai m i s th at tri al cou n sel was i neffective fo r fail i ng " t o cha ll enge , and p r eserve th e Com m o n wealth ' s 'prosec u to rial mi sco n duc t ,' w h e r e th e Co m mo n wea lth ha d 'faile d '
to es t ablis h th e re qui red an d n ecessary m ens r ea to h ave demo n str ated th at pe ti tio n e r h ad

co mmitt ed Mu rder in th e F ir st
- D eg r ee an d r elat ed c har ges. " P eti tione r ' s Decemb er 2 , 20 1 4 P CRA P e ti tio n . " It is we ll -settled th at cou n sel i s presu m ed to be effective
.... " Co mm o n weal t h

v. Busa n e t

, 6 18 P a. 1 , 1 8 , 54 A.3d 35 , 45 (20 1 2). I n Com m onwealth v . Wharton , 57 1 P a. 8 5 , 86 , 8 11 A.2d 978 , 986 (2002) , th e court n oted th at " [ c [ l aim s o f ineffecti ve assis t an ce o f co u nse l are
n o t se l f -p rov in g ; thu s , ap pe ll ant's undevelo p e d argumen t s r es p ec ti n g c o u n se l ar e i n suffic i e n t toPa ge 1 0 of 1 5

Co mm w. v . Ma li k Co ll in s P e tition e r 's si xth cl a im i s that tri al coun se l was in effe cti ve fo r failing t o " prop e rl y crosse xa min e th e Co mm o n we al th 's w itne ss Cl ar e nce M i lton , whose tes ti mony w a s base d o n perj ury of wh at h e obs e rv e d to peti ti o n e r b e in g th e s h oo t er, whi ch i f c o un sel w o uld h ave i n vesti g ate d ; the true trier of fa c t would h a v e d e m o n s trate d th at th e Co mm o nw ea lth's wi tn ess, Mr. Mil to n w a s inc arc e rate d on the date of th e crim e." P eti ti o n er's D ece mbe r 2, 2 014 PCRA P eti ti o n. Again , this cl a im i s fac tu a lly incorr ect. T h e r eco rd s h ow s th at Cl ar e nc e Mil to n was ex t e n sive l y crosse xamined a s t o in co n sis tenc y, b i as, a nd m o ti v e to lie. I d. F urth er, p e ti ti o n e r h as fail e d to d e v e l op thi s claim. See W

ha rto n. Th e r e for e, p e titio n e r 's sixth c lai m i s wi tho u t m e ri t. Petiti o ner ' s se v e nth cl a im i s th at trial co un sel w as i n effe c ti ve for failin g "to i n ves tigat e, find and c a ll charact e r wi tn esse s , p artic ul arl y Willi e B ell, w h o w a s i n car cerate d i n the P hila d elp hi a prove an e nti tlem e nt t o r e li e f. " T h es e are ar g u abl y thr ee se p arat e claim s that p etiti o n er h as fai l e d to dev e lop
. Th e r e is n o b as i s in the reco rd that an y prosec ut o ri al m isc ondu ct o cc urr e d
. The r e fo r e, trial coun se l wa s n o t in e ff ec ti ve for fa ilin g to c ha ll e n ge the prosec u tor's allege d mi sco ndu c t. Accordin g l y, p etition e r 's claim h as no b as i s in fact. P e tition e r 's fi fth cl aim i s that tri al co un se l was i n effe ctive fo r fail u r e "to r aise and p reserve th e C o mm o n weal th 's witn esses' t es tim o ni es b e in g in co n siste n t and of p e r j u ry." P eti ti o n er's D e cember 2, 2 014 PCRA P etition
. Th ere is n o s upp ort in th e r ecor d for th is clai m . T rial co u nsel tho rou g hly c ross- e xamin e d th e w itn esses. Jo se Brig gs was c ro ss - exa mi n e d fo r ove r t we nty (20) p ages a s r e fl e cted in th e note s o f t es ti m o n y . (N .T. , 11 /2 0/2012, at 130

- 147 , 15 7

- 1 58)
. Cl ar e n ce M ilt o n w a s al so cro ss - ex amined e xt e n s i ve l y a s t o in c on s i ste nc y, b ia s, and m o tiv e to li e . (N .T. , 11 /2 0/201 2, at 21 5 -252 , 2 54-25 5, 25 6-25 7 )
. Ind ee d , all the Co mm o nw eal th wi tn esses were similarl y agg re ss ivel y cro ss -ex a min e d
. As p eti ti o n e r 's clai m is fa ctu a ll y i n c orrect , i t is w i tho u t

me ri t.P age 1 1 of 1 5

Co m mw . v . Malik Collins Coun ty P riso n s at, C F CF on the date th at C l are n ce Milto n testifi ed too that he had observed the pe titi one r ' shoo t ' th e v i ctim. " P etitio n e r ' s D ece mber 2 , 20 1 4 P CRA P etiti on. Counse l i s obliged to '" co n duc t a prompt i n vesti gatio n of th e circu m stances of the case and exp l o r e a ll ave nu es l eadi n g t o fac t s r e l evan t to guilt. "' Commonwealth v. McCaskill , 46 8 A.2d 472 , 47 8 ( P a . S u per . 1 9 8 3) ( qu o ting A m e ri c an B ar Associati on , S t an d ards for th e D efense F un cti on§ 4-4.1 ( approve d 1 979)). However, " tri al co un se l 's fa ilur e to co n du ct a m ore thorough inves tigation or t o interview
all potenti al witnesses does not consti tut e a pe r s e i n effectiveness
. " Commonwealth v . Wallace , 5 0 0 A
. 2 d 81 6 , 818 ( P a . S u per . 1 985)
. In Commonwealth v. Peterk i n, 51 1 P a. 299 , 319 , 513 A.2d 373 , 3 8 3 ( 1 9 86 ) , the co u rt exp l aine d that the " [ t]he r easo n able n ess o f counse l ' s in ves ti gati ve decis i o n s d epe nd s cri tica ll y on th e informatio n s u pp li e d by th e d efen dan t. " To prove that counsel
w a s in eff e c tiv e for faili n g to ca ll a witness, pe ti tione r mus t s h ow : " ( 1 ) th e witness exis t e d ; (2) the
w itn e ss was avai l ab l e to t es ti fy fo r th e d efe n se; (3) counse l knew of, or s hould h ave kn own of , the existence of th e wi tn ess; ( 4 ) th e w i tn ess was willing t o testify for the d efe n se; an d (5 ) the abse n ce
o f the tes timon y of the wi tness was so p r ej u dicial as to h ave denied [ ap p e ll ant ] a fair tria l. " Commonwe a lth v . Thomas, 6 1 5 Pa
. 47 7 , 496 , 44 A
. 3 d 12 , 23 (20 1 2) (quoti n g Commonwealth v . Johnson , 600 P a . 329, 35 1 , 66 A.2d 523 , 536 (2009)). Accor di ng ly , pe ti ti o n er has not properly established this cl ai m . I n d eed , p etitioner di d n o t attach a ffi davi t s from any proffere d chara cte r
w i tn ess to h is pe ti ti o n . As a res ult , h i s cl ai m is a bal d assertion of in effectivene s s a s he has fai l e d t o m eet any of the fi ve p ron gs . See Commonweal t h v . Carter, 66 1 A
. 2 d 390, 396 ( P a . Super. 1995) ( h o l ding th at " [i ]n effec tiveness for fai lin g to call a w i tness will no t be found whe r e a d efe nd an t fai l s t o prov id e affidavi t s from th e alleged witnesse s" )
. Add itio n al l y , trial cou n sel was n ot i neffec tive for fai lin g t o ca ll c h aracter wi tnesse s because pe ti ti o n e r has a cri minal record, d oes not h ave " good c h aracte r ," an d th ere i s nothing o n the recordP ag e 12 o f 1 5

Co mm w. v . Malik Collins 3 S ee C P -5 1 -C R-0 0 111 95-2007 (co nvi c t ed of first -d eg r ee murder o n Sep t emb er 1 8 , 2008) ; CP-51-CR

- 0005 88 5-2007 ( c o n v i c t ed o f fi rst- d eg r ee murder o n O c t ober 23 , 200 8 ) ; CP-5 1 -C R -00044 8 0-20 IO ( con v ic t ed o f first

- degree murder o n A ug u s t 24, 2 011 ) ; CP-5 1 -C R -0004 4 81-2010 (co n vic t ed o f fir s t-deg r ee murde r on Augus t 2 4 , 201 1 )
. I n Co mm onwea lt

h v . B rady, 5 10 Pa
. 123 , 50 7 A. 2 d 66 ( 1 986), we h e ld that o th erw i se a dmi ss ible prio r in co n siste n t state m e n ts o f a d eclar ant who is a w i tness i n a j udi c ial p ro ce ed i n g and is av ailabl e for cross - exa mi n ati o n m ay b e u se d as s ub s tanti ve ev id e n ce to p r ov e th e tru th of th e m atte r s asse rt e d the r ei n . I d. at 13 1, 507 A.2 d at 70
. We set fo rth i n Co mm onwealth v . L ively, [53 0 ] P a . [4 6 4 ] , 61 0 A.2 d 7 , al so de c id e d t o d ay, th at o ther wis e a dm issi bl e p rio r in co n s i s tent s t ate ment s we r e l i mi ted to a s t at e m en t th at h a d b ee n g i ven un d e r oath at a fo rm a l l egal p r ocee d i n g; or a state m e nt th at h a d b ee n red u ce d to a foll o win g: Commo nwea lt

h v. R e i d, 5 33 Pa. 5 0 8 , 626 A.2 d 118 (1993), th e Su pr e m e C o urt r estate d the Peti tioner wa s not at th e sce ne o f the c rim e.'" Pe titi oner ' s D ece mb er 2 , 20 1 4 P C RA Petiti on . I n p re serv e th e C o mm o n w ealth ' s wi tne ss , Jo se B ri ggs , wh os e testi m ony was; ' th at Mali k C o ll ins, P eti tioner 's e i g hth cl a im i s th at trial co u ns e l was i neffec tive for fai lin g " t o rai se an d wi tn esses . K erste ter , 877 A. 2 d at 468. Ther efore, tri al co un s el was not i n e ff ec ti v e for faili n g to call c h aracter there i s a r eas on ab le prob abili ty th at the o ut co m e of th e ju ry trial wo uld h ave b ee n d iffe r e n t. See p etitio n er h as failed t o dem o n s trate th at , b u t for tri al cou n se l 's fail ure to call c h aracter w i tnesses w o uld r es t h is cas e w ith o u t ca llin g an y wi tn esses. (N.T., 11/ 2 6 / 20 1 2, at 4

- 1 2). Acco rdi ngly , did n o t s t at e h e inten de d t o c all an y c h arac ter wi tn esses. I ns t ea d , p etitio n e r co n fi rm e d th at h e w i th o u t ca lling said w itne sses, th is court co nd uc t e d a colloq u y of p eti ti o n e r w h o p artici p ate d b ut defen se c oun se l in fo rmed thi s court of hi s fai le d att e mp t t o l ocate wi tn esses an d th at h e woul d r e st P e ti tioner al s o did n o t establi s h an y ev id e n ce of goo d c h arac t e r i n h i s p eti tio n . A dditi o n al l y, whe n evi den c e wo uld h ave re fut e d any cla im th at Co lli ns was a non - v i o l e n t and l aw - abidi ng ind iv idu al. l e tter , petiti o n er ha d pri o r c rimin al co n v i c ti o n s, i nclud i n g fo u r mu r d e r conv i cti ons. 3 Thu s, this indi catin g p eti ti o n e r wis hed t o ca ll c h arac t e r w itn ess e s at trial. As counsel s t at ed in h is FinleyPage 13 of 15

Co m mw. v . Malik Collin s counse l h a d li ed i n Appe ll at e B rief , s tating that ' Jo s e Bri g gs had s aw Mr. M il t on at the Murder Fi n a ll y , peti tione r claim s that trial counsel was i n e ff ec ti ve at appe ll ate rev i ew " where merit. Common w ealth v . H

u gh es, 58 1 P a . 274 , 865 A.2d 761 (2004). Ac c ordingly , th is claim is wi th ou t i n effecti vene s s. In ge n eral , trial cou n sel canno t rai s e hi s own ineffec tivene ss. See , e . g ., on appeal. Here , pe ti tione r clai m s th at tri al coun s e l wa s i neffective fo r faili n g t o raise hi s own Nex t, peti ti o n er clai ms th at trial coun s el was i neffecti ve fo r fai l ing t o rai se the above i ss ue of i dentification has no merit. pe ti tio n er' s claim that tri al cou n s e l was i neffec tive for failing to conte st Jo s e Bri g g s ' s r ecan t ati on 1 23 , 507 A
. 2 d 66 ( 1 986); Commonwealt h v . Li ve ly , 530 Pa
. 464 , 6 1 0 A.2d 7 ( 1 992)
. T he r efore , from th e photograp h ic array . (N.T. , 1 1 /2 1 /1 2 , at 1 53-64)
. See Commonwealth v . Brad y , 5 1 0 Pa
. D etective William Ke l hower who t e stified to Jo s e Briggs ' s prior identification of th e peti ti one r was r ead t o the jury
. (N
. T. , 1 1 /2 0/12 , at 106-126)
. Furthe r , the Commonwealth p r esented B riggs ' s recantati on , hi s statement iden tifying Collins a s the shoo t er from a pho t ographic array claimed that he di d no t know th e iden ti ty of the person who s hot decedent. Id. As a re s ul t of Jose i dentify th e defe n dant at tri a l. At tri al , Jose Bri ggs den i ed s ignin g this photograph i c array and in a d mitting th e w i tn e s ses ' prior i de n tificatio n s of the defe n dant notwith s t anding their failure t o Commonwealth v . Doa , 5 53 A.2d 416 , 422 ( P a. Super . 1 9 8 9) , the court held that there was no error co n cerning his s tatement to police and his identification of Co ll i n s i n a p h o t ographic array . I n I n th i s ca s e , Jo s e B riggs was s u bjected to di r ect exami nation an d cros s -exami n atio n A.2d 11 , 1 4 (1992))
.

wnt m g signed an d a d o pte d by th e witness ; or a stateme n t that is a co n temporaneo u s verbati m r ecord in g of th e wi tn ess ' stat ement. I d. , 533 P a. at 5 1 4 , 626 A.2d at 1 21 (quo ti n g Commonwealth v . Burgos , 53 0 P a . 473 , 478 , 6 1 0P age 14 of 1 5

Commw. v. Malik Collin s w h en tes ti m ony b y M r. B riggs was qu i t e o p pos it e an d w h ere th e c h arges were i ni ti ally dis mi sse d .' " P e ti tioner ' s D ece mber 2 , 20 14 P CRA P etiti on. P e ti ti o n er ' s t e n th cl ai m i s w i tho u t

m eri t becau se i t is un i n telligible an d un d evelope d
. I n h is p e ti tion , Colli n s fai ls t o log i ca ll y es t ablis h hi s c l ai m th at tri al co u n sel li e d
. Th e r efo r e , th is clai m p r ovi d e s no bas i s for relief und er P CRA. See Commonwealth v. Will i ams , 557 P a. 2 07 , 223, 7 32 A.2d 1 1 6 7 , 1 1 7 5 (1999) (ac kn owledg i ng

" u navai lab i l ity o f relief b ased upo n u ndeve l o ped c l ai m s for w hi c h i n s uffi cie nt ar g um e n t s are p r esen t ed on ap p eal " ). F urth e rm o r e , Colli n s h as fai l ed t o es t ab li s h h ow a d i fferent co u rse o f acti o n b y co un se l
wo u l d h ave ac h ieved a d i ff eren t ou t co m e. As th e cou rt h e ld in Co m monweal th v . Fisher , 5 7 2 P a . 10 5 , 11 6 , 81 3 A.2 d 76 1 , 767 (20 0 2) , " [s ] pec ul atio n b y hi n ds i g h t th at a d i ffe r e nt strat egy m igh t poss i bly h ave b ee n s u ccessful is no t th e t est w h ic h establ i s h e s in effec tive n ess o f co un se l. " I n St ri c kland v. Wa s h i ngton , 4 66 U
. S
. 66 8 , 6 8 9 (198 4 ) , th e Uni t ed S t at es S upre m e Cou rt i n s tru c t ed th at " [a] fai r as s e s s m e n t of attorney performan ce r e q u ir es th at every e ff o rt be m ade t o e li min at e th e d i s t orti ng effec t s of h i n dsig h t , to reco n s truc t the ci r cum s t ances of co un sel ' s c h a ll e n ged conduct , and t o eval uat e th e con du c t fro m co un sel ' s pe r s p ec tive at th e time. " Th e co urt h as f urth e r d ecl ared , " A c h o s en s trategy wi ll not be fou n d t o h ave l acked a reasonable basis un less i t i s p r oven

' th at an alternative n o t c h osen offere d a po t en tial for s u cce s s s u bstan tially great er th a n th e co ur se
ac tually p u rs u e d
. "' Co m monwealth v . Willia m s , 5 8 7 P a . 30 4 , 312 , 899 A.2 d 1060 , 1 06 4 (2 00 6) (q u oti ng Co mm o n weal t

h v. Howard, 553 P a. 266 , 2 74 , 7 1 9 A.2d 233 , 23 7 ( 1 9 98 )). E ve n if p e ti tioner h ad m ade an arguab l y me rit oriou s c l ai m , h e i s s till n o t e n ti tled t o r elief becau se th e i n tro d uctio n of any suc h evi de nc e wo ul d no t h ave co n tribu t e d t o a d ifferen t ver d ict. See Co mm o n weal th v. P o lk , 5 0 0 A.2d 8 25 , 829 ( P a. S uper. 1 985) ( h o l ding th at " ( c ] o un sel w ill n o t be dee m e d i neff

e ctive fo r fai l ing t o as s e rt a d e f ens e th at wo u l d no t h ave b e e n be nefi c i al o r fo rP age 1 5 of 1 5

Commw
. v . Malik Collins BY T H E COURT , fai l ing to interview witn esses w h ose testimony wou l d n ot have bee n he l pfu l " ). I n d eed, th e evi d ence that the Com m onwealth a ddu ce d at trial p r oved beyond a reaso n ab l e d o ub t th at Co ll ins

was gui l ty of th e cri m es fo r w h ic h h e was convic t ed. No th ing abou t p rio r co un se l ' s re p rese n tation

or trial strategy wou l d have changed th is o ut co m e. T h us , pe ti tioner was n ot pr eju di ced by

counse l ' s a ll eged errors. As the court h e ld i n Commonwealth v . Albre c ht , 554 Pa. 3 1 , 4 6 , 720 A.2d 693, 7 0 1 (1998), "[i ] f i t is clear that [petitioner ] has not d emons trat e d that counsel's act or omiss i on
a d ve r se l y affecte d the outcome of the p rocee d ings , the claim may be dismissed o n that bas i s a l one
and th e co u rt need n ot fi r s t d e t ermine whethe r the first an d secon d pro n gs have been m e t. " Consequentl y , Co ll ins is no t en ti tl e d to P CRA r elief under any of the ineffec tiveness o f co un se l claim s rai se d in h is p eti tion. Moreover , the r e is no basis fo r Co ll i n s ' s c l aim that this court abu se d i t s discreti on. Th i s co u rt acte d with in the boun d s of th e law and rendere d its d ec i s i ons thr o u gho u t th e co u rse o f th is case o nl y after car efu l co n si d eration o f counsel's ar gume n ts an d an in d epen d en t
r ev i ew of the reco rd , p l ea d i n gs , and ap p l icab l e l aw. T h us , b ase d o n th e foregoing, it follows that Collins ' s ineffectiveness o f co u nse l c l ai m s
mu st fail. See Commonwealth v . Hall , 5 8 2 P a. 526 , 87 2 A.2 d 1 1 77 (2005) (ho ldin g th at thr ee p ro n g stand ar d for reviewing i neffectiveness c l ai ms ap pl ies t o the perfo rman ce o f cou n sel at an y l eve l of rep r ese n tation) ; Busanet , 572 P a. at 545 , 817 A.2d at 1 066 (ru l ing that "fai l u re t o satisfy any p rong of th e test fo r i n effec tiveness w ill req u i r e rejec tion of th e cl aim " ). Acco rdi ng l y , for th e foregoing r easo n s, th e dismissal of peti ti o n er ' s P CRA peti ti on sho uld be AFFIRMED.