J-S55026-15 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA 

 Appellee 

v. 

AJAMU R. LUNSFORD, 

 Appellant No. 377 WDA 2015 

Appeal from the PCRA Order February 24, 2015 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0017707-2003 

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., BENDER, P.J.E., and STRASSBURGER, J.* 

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED NOVEMBER 17, 2015 

Ajamu R. Lunsford appeals from the February 24, 2015 order denying 

his petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 

42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm. 

In June 2003, Darryl Terry, Sr. and his paramour, Jessenia Caraballo, 

owned a mobile store, selling groceries and cigarettes to people in the West 

End neighborhoods of the City of Pittsburgh. On the evening of June 5, 

2003, their mobile store was parked on Woodlow Street, near the Cherry 

Court Apartments. There, people had gathered for a neighborhood party. 

At about 8 p.m., Ms. Caraballo was at her store to restock inventory. 

While sitting in her parked SUV, speaking on the phone, Appellant 

____________________________________________ 

*

 Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 
J-S55026-15 

- 2 - 

approached her, spoke to her, and repeatedly asked her for a kiss. Ms. 

Caraballo observed that Appellant smelled of alcohol. She declined his 

advances, and Appellant left. However, she was upset by the encounter and 

called Mr. Terry, who was at home with their two children. 

Upon his request, Ms. Caraballo returned home, picked up Mr. Terry 

and their children, and returned to their mobile store. When they arrived, 

Ms. Caraballo identified Appellant standing across the street at the 

neighborhood party. Mr. Terry, who recognized Appellant from the store 

earlier in the day, confronted Appellant. Appellant became very aggressive. 

When Mr. Terry attempted to return to the SUV, Appellant began shooting, 

and the party crowd scattered. Mr. Terry survived but was struck three 

times: in his left femoral artery, the back of his right thigh, and the right 

side of his buttocks. A bullet hit the SUV as well, but Ms. Caraballo and the 

children were unharmed. 

Although Mr. Terry and Ms. Caraballo did not know Appellant 

personally, they described Appellant and informed the police that Appellant 

was known as “Jamu.” Thereafter, both identified Appellant in a policeadministered, photo array. 

Appellant was arrested and charged with criminal attempt (homicide), 

aggravated assault, recklessly endangering another person (REAP) (two 
J-S55026-15 

- 3 - 

counts), and firearms not to be carried without a license.1 Appellant waived 

his right to a jury trial. A first bench trial ended in a mistrial. However, in 

September 2007, a second bench trial commenced. 

At the second trial, Mr. Terry and Ms. Caraballo testified on behalf of 

the Commonwealth. Both positively identified Appellant as the shooter. A 

third witness, Ms. Shayisha Woods, placed Appellant at the scene but did not 

observe the shooting. Detective Dale Canofari also testified on behalf of the 

Commonwealth that, prior to Appellant’s arrest, Mr. Terry and Ms. Caraballo 

identified Appellant from an array of six photographs. Finally, the 

Commonwealth introduced physical evidence, including shell casings, a 

bullet fragment, and the firearm used in the assault. However, the 

Commonwealth did not directly link the physical evidence to Appellant.2

Appellant testified on his own behalf. According to Appellant, he never 

approached Ms. Caraballo but witnessed her involvement in a drug 

transaction that went awry. According to Appellant, he surmised that 

trouble would ensue. Thus, he and a friend, Mr. Andre Cain, decided to 

leave the party. Mr. Cain called his girlfriend, Ms. Tia Martin, for a ride 

home. Shortly after her arrival, Mr. Cain left with Ms. Martin, and Appellant 

walked toward his sister’s home, several blocks away. As they were leaving, 

____________________________________________ 

1

 Respectively, 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 901(a), 2702(a)(1), 2705, and 6106(a)(1). 

2

 All parties stipulated that Appellant did not have a license to carry a 

firearm. 
J-S55026-15 

- 4 - 

according to Appellant, gunfire broke out. Appellant denied shooting Mr. 

Terry. Notably, Appellant also denied drinking alcohol, on that evening or 

any other, due to a medical condition. However, Appellant offered no 

corroborating evidence of his medical condition. 

Ms. Martin also testified on Appellant’s behalf. Her testimony largely 

supported Appellant’s recollection of the timeline of the evening; however, 

she did not address Appellant’s abstinence from alcohol. Mr. Cain was not 

called upon to testify. 

Following his trial, Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault, both 

counts of REAP, and the firearms offense.3 The trial court sentenced 

Appellant to an aggregate term of fifteen to thirty years’ incarceration. 

Following a lengthy delay, irrelevant to this appeal, a panel of this Court 

affirmed Appellant’s judgment of sentence. See Commonwealth v. 

Lunsford, 82 A.3d 470 (Pa. Super. 2013) (unpublished memorandum). 

In August 2013, Appellant pro se filed a petition for collateral relief. 

Counsel was appointed and filed an amended petition, as well as a 

supplemental petition, asserting ineffective assistance of trial counsel on 

several grounds. In May 2014, the PCRA court apprised Appellant of its 

intention to deny him relief, without a hearing, on his claim that counsel was 

ineffective for failing to challenge the out-of-court identification of Appellant 

____________________________________________ 

3

 Appellant was found not guilty of criminal attempt (homicide). 
J-S55026-15 

- 5 - 

by Mr. Terry and Ms. Caraballo. However, the court granted Appellant a 

hearing to determine whether trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to 

call Mr. Andre Cain as a witness and (2) failing to solicit testimony from Ms. 

Tia Martin or Ms. Ivy Lunsford (Appellant’s mother) regarding Appellant’s 

abstinence from alcohol. 

In November 2014, the PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing. Mr. 

Cain, Ms. Martin, and Ms. Lunsford each testified on Appellant’s behalf. Mr. 

Cain’s PCRA testimony largely corroborated the trial testimony of Appellant 

and Ms. Martin. However, Mr. Cain acknowledged that, in 2001, he had 

pleaded guilty to the charge of counterfeiting. Notes of Testimony, 

11/17/2014, at 21. Ms. Martin testified that she had never seen Appellant 

drink, throughout their long friendship, and that he did not appear to be 

intoxicated on the night of the shooting. Finally, Ms. Lunsford testified that 

she never knew her son to drink alcohol or use other drugs and that 

Appellant abstained from alcohol because he suffered from epilepsy. 

However, on cross-examination, Ms. Lunsford acknowledged that she did not 

always know what her son did. See id. at 33. Moreover, she was unaware 

that Appellant pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance in 

1995. Id. at 32. 

In February 2015, the PCRA court issued an order, denying Appellant 

collateral relief. See PCRA Court Order, 02/24/2015. The court explained

its decision in a memorandum opinion. The court determined that Mr. Cain 
J-S55026-15 

- 6 - 

was not a credible witness, and therefore, according to the court, Appellant 

was not prejudiced by trial counsel’s failure to call Mr. Cain to testify at trial. 

See PCRA Opinion, 02/24/2014, at 4-6. Moreover, the court noted that Mr. 

Cain acknowledged that he was previously convicted for counterfeiting and 

concluded that this provided trial counsel a reasonable basis to exclude Mr. 

Cain. Id. at 6. Regarding the testimony of Ms. Martin and Ms. Lunsford, the 

court concluded that Appellant suffered no prejudice. Id. at 7. The court 

noted that neither witness was in Appellant’s presence for an extended 

period prior to the shooting and, therefore, could not testify persuasively as 

to whether Appellant drank any alcohol on that evening. Id. 

Appellant timely appealed. Citing the opinion explaining its decision, 

the PCRA court did not direct Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) 

statement. 

On appeal, Appellant renews his basic contention that trial counsel was 

ineffective. He contends the PCRA court erred in (1) its assessment of Mr. 

Cain’s credibility and its determination that there was a reasonable basis for 

trial counsel’s decision not to call Mr. Cain as a trial witness; (2) its 

assessment of the persuasive value of testimony offered by Ms. Martin and 

Ms. Lunsford; and (3) its determination that the photo array shown Mr. 

Terry and Ms. Caraballo was not impermissibly suggestive. See Appellant’s 

Brief at 30-35, 37-40, 42. Moreover, (4) Appellant contends that the 
J-S55026-15 

- 7 - 

cumulative impact of trial counsel’s errors warrant collateral relief. Id. at 

55.4 

We review an order denying a petition under the PCRA to determine 

whether the findings of the PCRA court are supported by the evidence of 

record and free of legal error. Commonwealth v. Ragan, 923 A.2d 1169, 

1170 (Pa. 2007). The PCRA court’s findings will not be disturbed unless 

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

v. Carr, 768 A.2d 1164, 1166 (Pa. Super. 2001). 

We presume counsel is effective. Commonwealth v. Washington, 

927 A.2d 586, 594 (Pa. 2007). To overcome this presumption and establish 

ineffective assistance of counsel, a PCRA petitioner must prove, by a 

preponderance of the evidence: “(1) the underlying legal issue has arguable 

merit; (2) counsel’s actions lacked an objective reasonable basis; and (3) 

actual prejudice befell the petitioner from counsel’s act or omission.” 

Commonwealth v. Johnson, 966 A.2d 523, 533 (Pa. 2009) (citations 

omitted). “A petitioner establishes prejudice when he demonstrates that 

there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional 

errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id. A claim 

____________________________________________ 

4

 Appellant’s brief fails to include a statement of questions involved or a 

summary of his argument. See Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a); Pa.R.A.P. 2118. Thus, 

we admonish Appellant that he has not conformed to our Rules of Appellate 

Procedure and risks waiver. See Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 

496, 497-98 (Pa. Super. 2005). Nevertheless, we review his claims. 
J-S55026-15 

- 8 - 

will be denied if the petitioner fails to meet any one of these requirements. 

Commonwealth v. Springer, 961 A.2d 1262, 1267 (Pa. Super. 2008) 

(citing Commonwealth v. Natividad, 938 A.2d 310, 322 (Pa. 2007)); 

Commonwealth v. Jones, 942 A.2d 903, 906 (Pa. Super. 2008).5

Appellant contends that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call 

Mr. Cain as a witness. He asserts that the PCRA court erred in its 

determination that Mr. Cain was not a credible witness, clarifying certain 

minor inconsistencies between his testimony and the testimony of other 

witnesses. Moreover, Appellant rejects the PCRA court’s conclusion that trial 

counsel’s decision not to call Mr. Cain was reasonable, suggesting that the 

admission of evidence demonstrating Mr. Cain’s conviction for counterfeiting 

would not have impeached his credibility as a defense witness.6

____________________________________________ 

5

 In its brief, the Commonwealth suggests we recognize, as a general rule of 

law, that a PCRA petitioner “fails to satisfy his burden of production – much 

less persuasion – unless he calls the allegedly ineffective attorney to the 

stand.” Appellee’s Brief at 21. According to the Commonwealth, absent 

testimony from the allegedly ineffective attorney regarding the “reasonable 

basis” prong of the ineffectiveness test, a petitioner’s claim is necessarily 

defeated. Id. at 22 (citing in support Commonwealth v. ReyesRodriguez, 111 A.3d 775 783 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en banc)). We decline to 

accept the Commonwealth’s suggestion and note that its reliance upon 

Reyes-Rodriguez is misplaced. In that case, the allegedly ineffective 

counsel actually testified. Id. at 779. Nevertheless, petitioner failed to 

establish an evidentiary basis for his ineffectiveness claim. Id. at 783. 

6

 There is no dispute before this Court regarding Mr. Cain’s availability or 

willingness to testify. See Commonwealth v. Sneed, 45 A.3d 1096, 1108-

09 (Pa. 2012) (setting forth the requirements to establish a petitioner’s 

(Footnote Continued Next Page) 
J-S55026-15 

- 9 - 

Appellant’s argument is without merit. The decision whether to call a 

particular witness implicates matters of trial strategy. See Commonwealth 

v. Washington, 927 A.2d 586, 599 (Pa. 2007). Thus, Appellant must 

“demonstrate that trial counsel had no reasonable basis for declining to call” 

Mr. Cain. Id. 

Here, Mr. Cain acknowledged his conviction for counterfeiting, a crime 

involving dishonesty. See, e.g., Kinniry v. Abington Sch. Dist., 673 A.2d 

429, 433 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (identifying both counterfeiting and trafficking 

in counterfeit goods to be crimes involving dishonesty, i.e., crimen falsi). 

Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 609(a) permits the admission of such crimes 

expressly “[f]or the purpose of attacking the credibility of [the] witness.” 

Pa.R.E. 609(a). Thus, if trial counsel had called upon Mr. Cain to testify, the 

Commonwealth could have impeached his credibility. Moreover, Mr. Cain’s 

testimony was largely cumulative of Ms. Martin’s trial testimony. See 

Commonwealth v. Spencer, 639 A.2d 820, 825 (Pa. Super. 1994) (“As a 

general rule, counsel will not be deemed ineffective for failing to call 

witnesses whose testimony is merely cumulative of that of other 

witnesses.”). In light of these considerations, we discern no error in the 

(Footnote Continued) _______________________ 

claim of ineffective assistance of counsel where counsel has failed to call a 

potential witness). 
J-S55026-15 

- 10 - 

PCRA court’s determination that trial counsel had an objectively reasonable 

basis not to call Mr. Cain.7

Appellant also contends that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to 

solicit testimony from Ms. Martin or Ms. Lunsford regarding Appellant’s 

abstinence from alcohol.8 Appellant’s contention merits little discussion. 

The PCRA court considered the testimony offered by Ms. Martin and Ms. 

Lunsford but discounted its persuasive weight, noting that neither witness 

was with Appellant for sufficient time to testify authoritatively that Appellant 

did not drink alcohol on the evening of the shooting. PCRA Opinion at 7. 

Thus, the PCRA court concluded, Appellant suffered no prejudice, as their 

testimony “could not possibly have changed the outcome of the trial.” Id. 

We discern no error.9

____________________________________________ 

7

 Further, we note the following. Sitting as a fact-finder, the PCRA court was 

permitted to reject Mr. Cain’s testimony based solely upon his counterfeiting 

conviction. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Emler, 903 A.2d 1273, 1276 

(Pa. Super. 2006) (“When evaluating the credibility and weight of the 

evidence, the fact-finder is free to believe all, part, or none of the 

evidence.”); Pa.R.E. 609(a). 

8

 Ms. Lunsford did not testify at Appellant’s trial but did testify at Appellant’s 

sentencing. As with Mr. Cain, there is no dispute regarding her availability 

or willingness, at the time of Appellant’s trial, to testify in defense of her 

son. Sneed, 45 A.3d at 1108-09. 

9

 We note further that although Ms. Caraballo testified on cross-examination 

that, when Appellant approached her and asked her for a kiss, she was close 

enough to Appellant to “smell the beer on his breath,” this observation was 

not instrumental to her in-court identification of Appellant as the individual 

who later shot Mr. Terry. Notes of Testimony, 09/17/2007, at 56; see also

(Footnote Continued Next Page) 
J-S55026-15 

- 11 - 

Appellant contends that trial counsel was ineffective for not challenging 

the out-of-court identification of Appellant by Mr. Terry and Ms. Caraballo. 

According to Appellant, the identification procedure administered by police 

was unduly suggestive and thus created a substantial risk for 

misidentification. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Fisher, 769 A.2d 1116, 

1126 (Pa. 2001). However, the PCRA court examined the photo array 

displayed to Mr. Terry and Ms. Caraballo, considered the circumstances in 

which the out-of-court identifications occurred, and concluded they were not 

suggestive. The record supports, and therefore, we accept the PCRA court’s 

conclusion. Ragan, 923 A.2d at 1170; Carr, 768 A.2d at 1166. Appellant’s 

contention is without merit. 

Finally, Appellant contends that the cumulative impact of trial 

counsel’s errors warrants relief. This claim is devoid of merit. “It is well 

established that no number of failed ineffectiveness claims may collectively 

warrant relief if they do not do so individually.” Commonwealth v. 

Simpson, 112 A.3d 1194, 1205-06 (Pa. 2015) (recognizing that the 

“cumulative prejudice” arising from otherwise valid claims may be 

(Footnote Continued) _______________________ 

Notes of Testimony, 09/17/2007, at 43 (unequivocally stating “Darryl was 

getting back in the truck[,] and [Appellant] just started shooting.”). 

Moreover, Appellant’s consumption of alcoholic beverages, or his abstinence 

therefrom, was not a subject of Mr. Terry’s testimony. See generally Notes 

of Testimony, 09/18-19/2007, at 32-65. 
J-S55026-15 

- 12 - 

considered). Here, Appellant has failed to establish that his trial counsel 

committed any errors.10 Accordingly, no relief is due. 

Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 11/17/2015 

____________________________________________ 

10 We note that Appellant’s claim that counsel failed to solicit testimony 

regarding his professed abstinence from alcoholic beverages was arguably 

meritorious. To be clear, (1) Appellant’s mother and friend were not called 

upon to testify that Appellant refrains from drinking alcohol, and (2) it 

appears that they were willing and able to so testify. However, we stress 

that Appellant incurred no prejudice from the absence of this testimony at 

his trial. Moreover, as this is Appellant’s only claim disposed on prejudice 

grounds, there is no accumulation of prejudice to consider. Therefore, 

“cumulative prejudice,” as recognized in Simpson, is irrelevant to 

Appellant’s appeal.