J-S29043-21

*Former Justice specially assigned to Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

Appellee

v.

IGNACIO CARTEGENA,

 Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 2244 EDA 2020

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered October 20, 2020

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0010833-2012

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J. and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED NOVEMBER 29, 2021

Appellant, Ignacio Cartegena, appeals from an order entered in the 

Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County on October 20, 2020, 

dismissing without an evidentiary hearing Appellant’s petition filed pursuant 

to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. 

Appellant contends that he is entitled to relief on the basis of ineffective 

assistance of counsel and exculpatory after-discovered evidence. 42 

Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9543(a)(2)(ii), (vi). After a careful review, we affirm.

The relevant facts and procedural history have been set forth previously 

by this Court as follows:

[O]n November 23, 2011, a van pulled onto the 2200 block of 

West Huntingdon Street in Philadelphia. Two men (one of whom 

was wearing a mask) stepped out of the van. Both had firearms 

and began shooting. Mark Plaire (“Plaire”) was on the block when 

the van pulled up and the shooting began. Thinking the men were 
J-S29043-21

- 2 -

firing at him, Plaire removed a .45 caliber pistol from his 

waistband, fired two shots in the direction of the men (whom he 

later identified as “Tay” and “Man-Man”), and ducked into his 

house. When Plaire walked back outside, he saw [Appellant]—

whom he knew as “Gaby”—firing at Tay and Man-Man. 

[Appellant's] girlfriend, Shannon Robinson (“Robinson”), was also 

on the scene. [Appellant] pushed Robinson to the ground during 

the crossfire. [At trial, Robinson testified that Appellant possessed 

a gun at the scene of the November 23, 2011 shooting on West 

Huntingdon Street.]

Following a January 26, 2015 waiver trial, th[e trial] court 

found [Appellant] guilty of [carrying a firearm without a license 

(18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6106), person not to possess firearms (18 

Pa.C.S.A. § 6105), and carrying a firearm in Philadelphia (18 

Pa.C.S.A. § 6108.)] The court deferred sentencing for completion 

of a presentence investigation. On April 28, 2015, the court 

sentenced [Appellant] to an aggregate term of six to seventeen 

years of incarceration, followed by three years of probation. 

[Appellant] (through counsel) filed a post-sentence motion on May 

3, 2015. The court denied the motion without a hearing on June 

12, 2015.

Commonwealth v. Cartegena, 156 A.3d 329 (Pa. Super. 2016) 

(unpublished memorandum at 1-2). Appellant filed a timely direct appeal to 

this Court on July 8, 2015, and we affirmed the judgment of sentence on 

August 9, 2016. Id. Appellant did not file a petition for allowance of appeal 

with our Supreme Court.

On January 10, 2017, Appellant filed a timely pro se petition for 

collateral relief pursuant to the PCRA. Appointed counsel filed an amended 

PCRA petition on November 20, 2017, alleging ineffective assistance of 
J-S29043-21

- 3 -

counsel.1 Specifically, the amended petition alleged that trial counsel was 

ineffective for failing to obtain prison telephone recordings between Appellant 

and Robinson and failing to call two witnesses to testify on his behalf at his 

bench trial. 

On July 19, 2018, the Commonwealth filed a motion to dismiss the 

PCRA. In response, Appellant filed a supplemental petition on April 9, 2019, 

withdrawing his claim addressing the prison telephone recordings and raising

an additional claim of after-discovered evidence involving the misconduct of 

former Philadelphia Detective Phillip Nordo.2 The Commonwealth filed a 

second motion to dismiss on July 29, 2020.

1 Paul M. Dimaio, Esquire, originally appointed to represent Appellant on 

January 25, 2017, was permitted to withdraw as PCRA counsel on March 20, 

2017. PCRA Court Opinion, 3/9/21, at 2. Jason C. Kadish, Esquire, was 

appointed to represent Appellant on April 24, 2017. Id.

2 The certified record does not indicate that Appellant sought or the PCRA 

court granted leave to file a supplemental petition. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 

905(A)(stating the PCRA court “may grant leave to amend or withdraw a 

petition for post-conviction collateral relief at any time. Amendment shall be 

freely allowed to achieve substantial justice”). Generally, claims raised in 

unauthorized supplements or amendments to PCRA petitions are subject to 

waiver. Commonwealth v. Reid, 99 A.3d 427, 437 (Pa. 2014). However, 

the PCRA court can implicitly allow an informal amendment where it does not 

strike the filing and considers the supplemental claims prior to disposing of 

the petition. Commonwealth v. Brown, 141 A.3d 491, 503 (Pa.Super. 

2016); see also Commonwealth v. Boyd, 835 A.2d 812, 816 (Pa. Super. 

2003) (holding that “by permitting Appellant to file a supplement, and in 

considering the supplement, the PCRA court effectively allowed Appellant to 

amend his petition to include those issues presented in the supplement”).

Here, although the PCRA court did not formally grant Appellant leave to 

supplement, the PCRA court did not strike the filing and considered Appellant’s 

claim of after-discovered evidence prior to dismissing Appellant’s petition 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S29043-21

- 4 -

On September 9, 2020, the trial court provided Appellant notice of intent 

to dismiss the PCRA petition without a hearing pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. Rule 

907. The trial court dismissed Appellant’s petition on October 20, 2020. 

Appellant timely appealed. Both Appellant and the trial court complied with 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

On appeal, Appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to hold 

an evidentiary hearing upon the issues presented in his petition. Appellant’s 

Brief at 5. Specifically, Appellant alleges that (1) counsel was ineffective for 

failing to call two witnesses and (2) after-discovered evidence relating to a 

former detective’s criminal misconduct calls into question the credibility of a 

trial witness’s statement to that detective. Appellant’s Brief at 10.

“Our standard of review for issues arising from the denial of PCRA relief

is well-settled. We must determine whether the PCRA court’s ruling is 

supported by the record and free of legal error.” Commonwealth v. Hand, 

252 A.3d 1159, 1165 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citation and quotation marks 

omitted). With the exception of the PCRA court’s legal conclusions, our 

standard of review is deferential:

without a hearing. Rule 907 Notice, 9/9/20. Moreover, in its Rule 1925(a) 

opinion, the PCRA court addressed the merits of the claim raised in the 

supplemental petition. PCRA Court Opinion, 3/9/21, at 7-10. Thus, we 

conclude that the PCRA court implicitly accepted the supplemental petition, 

effectively allowing Appellant to amend his petition, and we consider the 

merits of this claim. 
J-S29043-21

- 5 -

We view the findings of the PCRA court and the evidence of record 

in a light most favorable to the prevailing party. With respect to 

the PCRA court’s decision to deny a request for an evidentiary 

hearing, or to hold a limited evidentiary hearing, such a decision 

is within the discretion of the PCRA court and will not be 

overturned absent an abuse of discretion. The PCRA court’s 

credibility determinations, when supported by the record, are 

binding on this Court; however, we apply a de novo standard of 

review to the PCRA court’s legal conclusions.

Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). In addition, “a PCRA petitioner is 

not automatically entitled to an evidentiary hearing. Rather, the PCRA court 

may decline to hold a hearing if the petitioner’s claim is patently frivolous and 

has no support either in the record or other evidence.” Id. (citation and 

quotation marks omitted).

Appellant first argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call 

Wendy3 and Yolanda Dreher4 as witnesses at trial. According to Appellant, 

Wendy would have provided testimony impeaching Robinson’s testimony that 

Appellant possessed a gun and evidencing Robinson’s bias and motive to lie, 

and Yolanda would have testified that Appellant did not possess a firearm 

during the incident in question. Appellant’s Brief at 11-14. 

It is well-established that counsel is presumed effective. 

Commonwealth v. Ali, 10 A.3d 282, 291 (Pa. 2010). To be eligible for relief 

under the PCRA based upon ineffective assistance of counsel, the petitioner 

3 Appellant does not indicate Wendy’s last name.

4 We refer to her as Yolanda because another witness had the same last name.
J-S29043-21

- 6 -

must plead and prove by a preponderance of evidence that ineffective 

assistance of counsel “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). 

To be entitled to relief on an ineffectiveness claim, a PCRA 

petitioner must establish: (1) the underlying claim has arguable 

merit; (2) no reasonable basis existed for counsel’s action 

or failure to act; and (3) he suffered prejudice as a result of 

counsel’s error, with prejudice measured by whether there is a 

reasonable probability the result of the proceeding would have 

been different. Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 612 Pa. 333, 30 A.3d 

1111, 1127 (2011) (employing ineffective assistance of counsel 

test from Commonwealth v. Pierce, 515 Pa. 153, 527 A.2d 975-

76 (1987)).5

 ______

5 Pierce reiterates the preexisting three-prong test for 

ineffective assistance of counsel in Pennsylvania and holds 

it to be consistent with the two-prong performance and 

prejudice test in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 

668,104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Pierce, at 976-

77.

Commonwealth v. Treiber, 121 A.3d 435, 445 (Pa. 2015). Because all 

three elements of the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel test under Pierce

must be established to be entitled to relief, if a claim fails under any of the 

enumerated prongs, the claim may be dismissed on that basis alone without 

addressing whether the remaining two prongs have been met. 

Commonwealth v. Baker, 880 A.2d 645, 656 (Pa. Super. 2005). 

Failure to call a witness is not ineffective assistance of counsel per se. 

Commonwealth v. Cox, 983 A.2d 666, 693 (Pa. 2009) (citation omitted). The 
J-S29043-21

- 7 -

petitioner must prove the following, in addition to meeting the above ineffectiveness 

prongs, in order to prove that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a witness:

(1) the witness existed; (2) the witness was available to testify 

for the defense; (3) counsel knew or should have known of the 

existence of the witness; (4) the witness was willing to testify for 

the defense; and (5) the absence of the witness’s testimony was 

so prejudicial as to have denied him a fair trial.

Commonwealth v. Walls, 993 A.2d 289, 302 (Pa. Super. 2010).

With respect to Wendy, Appellant argues that if called as a witness, she

would have testified that “she spoke with [] Robinson, who indicated that she 

had Appellant ‘locked up’ for possessing a gun because Appellant had been 

unfaithful to Robinson during their romantic relationship.” Appellant’s Brief at 

11. The PCRA court found Wendy’s testimony constituted double hearsay and 

because Appellant failed to identify any applicable hearsay exceptions, the 

testimony would have been inadmissible. PCRA Court Opinion, 3/9/21, at 5.

Accordingly, we begin by examining whether the PCRA court correctly 

determined this claim lacked merit. Whether evidence is admissible at trial is 

within the sound discretion of the trial court, and this Court will not disturb a 

trial court’s decision absent an abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. 

Chmiel, 738 A.2d 406, 414 (Pa. 1999). Hearsay is an out-of-court statement 

a party offers into evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Pa.R.E. 

801(c). Hearsay is not admissible unless an exception applies. Pa.R.E. 802. 

An out-of-court statement containing another out-of-court declaration is 

defined as double hearsay. Chmiel, 738 A.2d at 417. “In order for double 
J-S29043-21

- 8 -

hearsay to be admissible, the reliability and trustworthiness of each declarant 

must be independently established. This requirement is satisfied when each 

statement comes within an exception to the hearsay rule.” Commonwealth 

v. Laich, 777 A.2d 1057, 1060 (Pa. 2001) (citation omitted).

Upon review of the record, we conclude Wendy’s proffered testimony 

constitutes hearsay and would have been inadmissible at trial. Appellant 

seeks to relay Robinson’s out-of-court statement through Wendy’s out-ofcourt statement to prove the truth of the matter asserted, i.e., that Appellant 

did not possess a firearm. This statement falls squarely within the definition 

of double hearsay and would have been inadmissible at trial unless each 

statement fell within an exception to the hearsay rule. 

Appellant argues that Wendy’s statement is subject to a hearsay 

exception and admissible as a prior inconsistent statement. “A witness may 

be examined concerning a prior inconsistent statement made by the witness 

to impeach the witness’s credibility.” Pa.R.E. 613(a). While a prior 

inconsistent statement may be admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule, 

Appellant does not proffer that Wendy could establish that Robinson uttered 

a statement that was inconsistent with Robinson’s testimony at trial. 

Appellant does not argue that Robinson told Wendy that she testified falsely 

or that she never saw Appellant with firearm. Appellant simply contends 

Robinson was biased against him and had a motive to lie because Appellant 

was unfaithful. Thus, this exception does not apply.
J-S29043-21

- 9 -

Appellant further argues that Robinson’s statement to Wendy is subject 

to a hearsay exception under Pa.R.E. 804(b)(3) as a statement against 

interest. At the time of Appellant’s bench trial, Pa.R.E. 804 provided, in 

pertinent part, that the following statements are not excluded by the hearsay 

rule:

(b) The Exceptions. The following statements, as hereinafter 

defined, are not excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is 

unavailable as a witness:

* * *

(3) Statement against interest. A statement which 

was at the time of its making so far contrary to the 

declarant’s pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far 

tended to subject the declarant to civil or criminal 

liability, or to render invalid a claim by the declarant 

against another, that a reasonable person in the 

declarant’s position would not have made the 

statement unless believing it to be true. In a criminal 

case, a statement tending to expose the declarant to 

criminal liability is not admissible unless corroborating 

circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of 

the statement.

Pa.R.E. 804(b)(3).5 This exception requires not only that the statement be 

against the declarant’s interest, “but also that there be corroborating 

circumstances clearly indicative of its trustworthiness, and that the declarant

be unavailable.” Commonwealth v. Spotz, 38 A.3d 244, 274 (Pa. 2011). 

5 Pa.R.E. 804 was amended March 1, 2017, effective April 1, 2017. Because 

an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is to be analyzed based upon the 

law as it existed at the time of representation, we confine our analysis to Rule 

804(b)(3) as it existed prior to April 1, 2017. Commonwealth v. Fowler, 

703 A.2d 1027 (Pa. 1997).
J-S29043-21

- 10 -

This exception is not applicable in this matter because the declarant,

Robinson, was available and in fact testified at trial. It is unnecessary to reach 

the question of trustworthiness of Robinson’s statement because Robinson 

was available as a witness and “regardless of how many indicia of reliability 

were or were not extant, the statement was not admissible under the hearsay 

exception for statements against interest.” Spotz, 38 A.3d at 274, n.15

(holding the trial court did not err in refusing to apply the hearsay exception 

for statements against interest where declarant was present in the courtroom 

during trial and was not declared unavailable). 

Therefore, because Appellant failed to prove that each statement in 

Wendy’s proposed testimony falls within an exception to the hearsay rule, 

counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to call a witness whose 

testimony would be inadmissible. See Commonwealth v. Stahley, 201 A.3d 

200, 211 (Pa. Super. 2018) (“Counsel cannot be found ineffective for failing 

to pursue a baseless claim.”). Accordingly, this claim is without arguable merit 

and the PCRA court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing it without a 

hearing.

Appellant further claims trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call

Yolanda as a witness. According to Appellant, Yolanda would have testified 

that “she was an eyewitness and Appellant did not possess a gun during the 

incident.” Appellant’s Brief at 13. The PCRA court found that Appellant was 

not prejudiced by trial counsel’s failure to call Yolanda as a witness because 
J-S29043-21

- 11 -

her testimony would have been cumulative of other testimony. PCRA Court 

Opinion, 3/9/21, at 6-7. 

Specifically, Melvin Dreher6testified that he heard the shooting that took 

place on November 23, 2011. N.T. 1/26/15, at 56. When Melvin looked 

outside, he saw Appellant, in front of his son’s house two doors away, and 

Appellant did not have a firearm. Id. Melvin then permitted Appellant and 

two females to enter his home and he did not observe Appellant with a firearm 

at that time. Id. at 57. Finally, Appellant testified that he did not have a 

firearm on the night of November 23, 2011. Id. at 60. 

Relevant evidence can be excluded where the probative value is 

outweighed by “needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Pa.R.E. 403. 

Cumulative evidence is “additional evidence of the same character as existing 

evidence and that supports a fact established by the existing evidence.” 

Commonwealth v. Flamer, 53 A.3d 82, 88 n.6 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation 

omitted). Counsel will not be found ineffective for failing to call a witness 

whose testimony would be cumulative. Commonwealth v. Meadows, 787 

A.2d 312, 320 (Pa. 2001). 

Appellant maintains that the PCRA court erred in finding Yolanda’s 

testimony was cumulative of other evidence, especially in light of Wendy’s 

proffered testimony that would have impeached the testimony of Robinson, 

6 We refer to him as Melvin because another witness had the same last name.
J-S29043-21

- 12 -

the only witness who testified that Appellant possessed a firearm. Appellant’s

Brief at 13. Appellant concludes that Yolanda’s testimony speaks directly to 

the only material issue in the case: whether Appellant possessed a firearm. 

We disagree.

As explained supra, Wendy’s proffered testimony would have 

constituted hearsay and would have been inadmissible. Without it, the trial 

court had no basis to find Robinson’s testimony that Appellant possessed a 

firearm incredible. Additionally, Yolanda’s testimony would be cumulative of

both Melvin’s and Appellant’s testimony, would not add any additional 

evidence, and would simply repeat their contention that Appellant did not 

possess a firearm. See PCRA Court Opinion, 3/9/21, at 7. Finally, contrary 

to Appellant’s assertion, Robinson was not the only witness who testified that 

Appellant possessed a firearm. Plaire testified during trial that he saw 

Appellant firing a gun. N.T., 1/26/15, at 21, 25. 

Because Yolanda’s testimony would be cumulative, we discern no error 

in the PCRA court’s conclusion denying Appellant’s claim of ineffective 

assistance of counsel for failure to call a witness. See Meadows, 787 A.2d 

at 320. Accordingly, Appellant failed to establish prejudice and the PCRA court 

properly dismissed Appellant’s claim without a hearing. See Hand, 252 A.3d 

at 1165. 

Finally, Appellant alleges he is entitled to relief under 42 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 9543(a)(2)(vi) on the basis of the after-discovered evidence that criminal 
J-S29043-21

- 13 -

charges were filed against former Philadelphia Police Detective Phillip Nordo 

in 2019 relating to criminal misconduct in criminal cases in which he was 

involved. Specifically, Appellant argues that Detective Nordo’s pattern of 

criminal misconduct in other criminal cases, including mistreatment of 

witnesses, procurement of false statements and tampering with evidence, 

calls into question the credibility of Plaire’s statement that he observed 

Appellant with a firearm. Appellant’s Brief at 14-16. 

Plaire was interviewed by Detective Nordo and Detective Thomas Gaul 

on June 4, 2012, regarding the shooting that occurred November 23, 2011. 

N.T. 1/26/15, at 12. Plaire provided a written statement to the detectives 

that he observed Appellant with a firearm on the date of the incident in 

question. Id. During trial, Plaire recanted the statements he gave to 

detectives that he had observed Appellant with a firearm and accused 

detectives of failing to give him food or drink for two days while he was in 

custody prior to giving his statement. N.T. 1/26/15, at 16; see also id. at 

11-12, 18-19, 24-25, 33-35. Appellant made the following averments, in 

relevant part, in his supplemental petition filed April 9, 2019: 

13. Petitioner avers that the trial transcript demonstrates that 

Philadelphia Police Detective Phillip Nordo was one of two 

detectives that interrogated witness Mark Plaire. 

14. Mark Plaire’s purported statement to Detectives Nordo & Gaul 

was put before this Honorable Court as substantive evidence.

15. This statement was vitally important to accurately 

adjudicating the instant case.
J-S29043-21

- 14 -

16. Mark Plaire’s testimony at trial was inconsistent with his 

purported statement to detectives. At trial, and while enjoying full 

immunity, Mark Plaire testified that he did not see Petitioner 

possessing or using a gun. Further, Mark Plaire testified that he 

did not place some of the signatures/initials on the document that 

the Commonwealth purported to be his statement. Finally, the 

purported statement of Mark Plaire was not videotaped and was 

presented as a document only.

17. Mark Plaire testified before this Honorable Court that he was 

not given anything to eat or drink by Detective Nordo or his 

colleagues for the two days he was in custody at the time of his 

purported statement.

18. Since the trial, evidence regarding Detective Nordo’s criminal 

conduct has come to light.

* * *

21. Detective Nordo is now facing criminal charges in Philadelphia 

County docketed at CP-51-CR-1856-2019.

22. Detective Nordo’s pattern of criminal misconduct has 

undermined the integrity of his investigations to such an extent 

that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken 

place.

Supplemental Petition, 4/9/19, at 2-3. 

Appellant attached two newspaper articles about Detective Nordo and a 

“disclosure packet” provided by the Philadelphia District Attorney’s office in 

support of this claim. Supplemental Petition, 4/9/19, at Exhs, A, B. The PCRA 

court dismissed this claim based upon Appellant’s failure to prove prejudice 

stating, “because evidence of former Detective Nordo’s alleged misconduct in 

unrelated cases would not compel a different verdict in this case, [Appellant’s]

claim must fail.” PCRA Court Opinion, 3/9/21, at 10. 
J-S29043-21

- 15 -

In order to be entitled to relief under this section of the PCRA, the 

petitioner must plead and prove by a preponderance of the evidence, “[t]he 

unavailability at the time of trial of exculpatory evidence that has subsequently 

become available and would have changed the outcome of the trial if it had 

been introduced.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2)(vi).

To obtain relief based on after-discovered evidence, [an] appellant 

must demonstrate that the evidence: (1) could not have been 

obtained prior to the conclusion of the trial by the exercise of 

reasonable diligence; (2) is not merely corroborative or 

cumulative; (3) will not be used solely to impeach the credibility 

of a witness; and (4) would likely result in a different verdict if a 

new trial were granted. Commonwealth v. Pagan, 597 Pa. 106, 

950 A.2d 270, 292 (2008) (citations omitted). “The test is 

conjunctive; the [appellant] must show by a preponderance of the 

evidence that each of these factors has been met in order for a 

new trial to be warranted.” Commonwealth v. Padillas, 997 

A.2d 356, 363 (Pa.Super. 2010) (citation omitted). Further, when 

reviewing the decision to grant or deny a new trial on the basis of 

after-discovered evidence, an appellate court is to determine 

whether the PCRA court committed an abuse of discretion or error 

of law that controlled the outcome of the case. Commonwealth 

v Reese, 444 Pa.Super. 38, 663 A.2d 206 (1995).

Commonwealth v. Foreman, 55 A.3d 532, 537 (Pa. Super. 2012). 

In Foreman, Foreman argued he was entitled to relief under the PCRA 

based upon a claim of after-discovered evidence. In 2011, nearly two years 

after Foreman’s conviction, the detective who testified at Foreman’s 

suppression hearing and trial was charged with various crimes involving 

perjury, false swearing in official matters, and obstructing administration of 

government functions. Foreman, 55 A.3d at 535. Foreman argued that his 

suppression motion was denied, and he was found guilty of firearms charges 
J-S29043-21

- 16 -

based largely upon the testimony of this detective, and if the suppression 

court or jury knew the detective was charged with these crimes, he may have 

been acquitted. Id. at 536. 

This Court concluded that the record supported the PCRA court’s 

decision that Foreman failed to meet the after-discovered evidence test 

because the evidence would be used solely to impeach the credibility of a 

witness; the testimony offered by the detective at the suppression hearing 

and at trial was corroborated by other evidence; and there was no nexus 

between the detective’s criminal charges filed in 2011 and his conduct in 

Foreman’s jury trial in 2008 and non-jury trial in 2009. Id. 

Appellant argues in his brief that 

Nordo’s pattern of criminal misconduct has so undermined the 

integrity of his investigations that Plaire’s testimony regarding his 

mistreatment prior to providing a statement, along with his denial 

of the authenticity of some of the initials and signatures placed on 

the statement, compel an examination of Nordo’s involvement in 

procuring this piece of evidence. The former detective’s pattern 

of alleged misconduct in dealing with witnesses calls into question 

the trial court’s conclusion that Plaire’s testimony regarding his 

mistreatment and failure to sign/initial the statement was 

incredible. 

Appellant’s Brief at 15-16 (footnote omitted). As in Foreman, it is clear from 

his argument that Appellant seeks to use Detective Nordo’s criminal conduct 

solely to impeach the credibility of Plaire’s statement to the detectives. 

Therefore, Appellant has failed to satisfy the third requirement of the afterdiscovered evidence test. Foreman, 255 A.3d at 537. 
J-S29043-21

- 17 -

Appellant has also failed to establish the fourth prong of the test that 

this after-discovered evidence would likely lead to a different verdict. 

Appellant fails to acknowledge that Detective Nordo did not testify at trial. 

Although Detective Nordo was one of two detectives present when Plaire gave 

his statement, it was Detective Gaul who took the statement from Plaire and 

testified at trial regarding the procedures he used when he interviewed Plaire. 

N.T. 1/26/12, at 48-49. Detective Gaul identified Plaire’s signature on the 

statement and the photos. Id. Detective Gaul testified that it was Plaire who 

wrote “shooting” at the top of the photo of Appellant and signed it. Id. at 51. 

Detective Gaul further testified that Plaire signed a form declining to allow his 

statement to be video recorded. Id. at 52. 

Furthermore, contrary to Appellant’s argument, Plaire was not the only 

witness who testified that Appellant was involved in the shooting. Robinson 

testified that she saw Appellant with a firearm during the shooting, thereby 

corroborating Plaire’s testimony. Id. at 39. 

Finally, as the PCRA court noted in its opinion, it had previously 

considered the inconsistencies in Plaire’s statement during Appellant’s bench 

trial and concluded that Plaire “‘was feigning a failed memory to avoid 

testifying against [Appellant].’” PCRA Court Opinion, 3/9/21, at 9, quoting

Trial Court Opinion, 11/30/15, at 4. 

Plaire testified consistently with his June 4, 2012 statement as to 

where and when the shooting took place and as to Tay’s and ManMan’s involvement. N.T., Jan. 26, 2015, at p. 20-22. The court 
J-S29043-21

- 18 -

found incredible that the only “detail” Plaire could not remember 

was [Appellant’s] involvement or even [Appellant’s] name). Id.

at 22. 

Id. at 9-10. 

Because Appellant failed to show any connection between this case and 

Detective Nordo’s alleged criminal misconduct in unrelated matters that 

occurred years after Appellant was tried and convicted, Appellant’s assertion 

that Detective Nordo committed criminal misconduct in this matter is pure 

speculation and would not likely compel a different verdict. See Foreman, 

55 A.3d at 537-38. Therefore, Appellant failed to establish two of the four 

prongs of the after-discovered evidence test and we discern no abuse of 

discretion in the PCRA court’s decision to dismiss Appellant’s petition without 

a hearing.

Based on the foregoing reasons, we affirm the PCRA court’s dismissal of 

Appellant’s PCRA petition.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/29/2021