J-S35004-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

STEVEN G. SLUTZKER

Appellant No. 1881 WDA 2015

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 4, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0006520-1991

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., RANSOM, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED JULY 7, 2017

Steven Slutzker appeals from the order, entered in the Court of 

Common Pleas of Allegheny County, denying his petition filed under the Post 

Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546, (“PCRA”). We affirm. 

John Mudd, Sr., was shot and killed on December 28, 1975. Slutzker, 

who had been romantically involved with the victim’s wife, Arlene Mudd, was 

charged with criminal homicide and two counts of solicitation to commit 

murder.

1

 At the coroner’s inquest, the homicide charge was dismissed. 

____________________________________________

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 Solicitation of Michael Pezzano to commit murder (CP-02-CR-000589-

1976), and solicitation of Stephen E. Harston to commit murder (CP-02-CR000610-1976). 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 902. 
J-S35004-17

- 2 -

Slutzker was convicted of one count of solicitation, at CP—02-CR-0000589-

1976) and sentenced to 111⁄2 to 23 months’ imprisonment.2 

The homicide case, dormant for years, was reopened in 1991 when the 

victim’s son, John Mudd, Jr., a child at the time of the murder, suddenly 

recalled the events of that night. Mudd claimed that during an emotional 

argument, he was flooded with images from that night, including one of 

Slutzker talking with his mother, who was also a suspect in the murder 

investigation. Based on Mudd’s statement and a review of the initial 

investigation, Slutzker was arrested and again charged with murder.

Following a jury trial in January 1992, Slutzker was convicted of firstdegree murder for the 1975 homicide of John Mudd, Sr. Following 

conviction, the court sentenced Slutzker to life imprisonment. On direct 

appeal, this Court affirmed, Commonwealth v. Slutzker, 638 A.2d 271 

(Pa. Super. 1993) (Table), and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied a 

subsequent petition for allowance of appeal. Commonwealth v. Slutzker, 

537 Pa. 631 (Pa. 1994) (Table). 

Slutzker filed a PCRA petition in 1997, which was denied. Denial of 

collateral relief was affirmed on appeal, and, thereafter, Slutzker filed a 

petition for habeas corpus in federal district court. The federal district court 

____________________________________________

2 Slutzker appealed and this Court affirmed his judgment of sentence. 

Commonwealth v. Slutzker, 393 A.2d 1281 (Pa. Super. 1978). The 

solicitation case is not before us. 
J-S35004-17

- 3 -

granted habeas corpus relief. The Commonwealth appealed, and the Court 

of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed. See Slutzker v. Johnson, 393 

F.3d 373 (3d Cir. Pa. 2004) (affirming grant of habeas corpus relief on 

ground that prosecution’s failure to disclose twenty-one police reports 

denied Slutzker due process, and on ground that trial court failed to compel 

victim’s wife to testify).

Following a new trial in 2007, Slutzker was again convicted of firstdegree murder, and the court sentenced him to life imprisonment. On 

March 16, 2010, this Court affirmed his judgment of sentence, 

Commonwealth v. Slutzker, 996 A.2d 556 (Pa. Super. 2010) (Table), and, 

on September 28, 2010, the Pennsylvania Supreme court denied Slutzker’s 

petition for allowance of appeal. Commonwealth v. Slutzker, 608 Pa. 639 

(Pa. 2010) (Table). 

Slutzker filed a pro se PCRA petition on January 3, 2011. The court 

appointed counsel, Christopher M. Boback, Esquire, and directed counsel to 

file an amended petition. Thereafter, Attorney Boback filed an amended 

petition on March 15, 2011, and the Commonwealth filed a reply. Slutzker 

then filed a pro se motion for withdrawal of counsel. Following two 

evidentiary hearings on Slutzker’s PCRA claims, and denial of all relief, the 

court ultimately granted counsel leave to withdraw and appointed the Office 

of Conflict Counsel to represent Slutzker. Patrick Nightingale, Esquire, was 

appointed to represent Slutzker. Slutzker again filed a pro se motion 
J-S35004-17

- 4 -

seeking to have counsel removed. Attorney Nightingale then filed a motion 

to withdraw, which was denied.

Slutzker renewed his request to have counsel removed on May 5, 

2014, advising the court that Erika P. Kreisman, Esquire, would agree to the 

appointment. The court granted the request; Attorney Nightingale 

withdrew, and Attorney Kreisman entered her appearance.

Attorney Kreisman filed an amended PCRA petition. The PCRA court 

held a hearing on two of Slutzker’s ineffectiveness claims: trial counsel’s 

failure to call several character witnesses, and counsel’s failure to impeach 

the testimony of Slutzker’s daughter, Amy Slutzker.3 The court denied 

Slutzker’s remaining claims without a hearing.

Following the evidentiary hearing, the PCRA court denied relief. 

Slutzker filed a timely appeal, and the court ordered him to file a Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal by February 2, 

2016.4 Slutzker raises the following issues for our review:

____________________________________________

3 Amy Slutzker testified that, on the night of the murder, she recalled her 

father getting a handgun from a dresser drawer, leaving their home for a 

time, and then returning and taking her to the home of Janet and Patrick 

O’Dea. She testified that she had always remembered these events, but was 

afraid of her father, and so she never revealed what she knew until her 

father asked her to testify on his behalf. PCRA Court Opinion, 7/6/16, at 4. 

4 The PCRA court’s order stated that “[t]he appellant is notified that that any 

issue not properly included in the Statement timely filed and served 

pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) shall be deemed waived[.]” PCRA Court 

Order, 12/8/15. Thereafter, on February 23, 2016, the court struck the Rule 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S35004-17

- 5 -

1. Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to present 

impeachment witness Monica McIlvain?

2. Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to present good 

character evidence?

3. Was trial counsel ineffective by failing to request a 

Kloiber[

5

] cautionary instruction about Cynthia DeMann’s 

identification of [Slutzker]?

4. Did appellate counsel Douglas Sughrue ineffectively fail to 

appeal the denial of the motion in limine [precluding 

questioning] Janet (O’Dea) Feiling [about criminal charges 

of which she was acquitted]? 

5. Was [Slutzker] represented ineffectively when counsel did 

not read Arlene Mudd’s coroner’s inquest testimony to the 

jury because she was unavailable? 

6. [Whether . . . trial counsel was ineffective for failing to 

object to the prosecutor questioning his alibi witnesses, 

the O’Deas,] “Isn’t it possible” [that Slutzker might have 

left their house]? 

7. Was trial counsel ineffective in not filing a motion in limine 

[to preclude testimony about] an alleged visit by [Slutzker] 

to John Mudd, Jr.’s job at the pizza parlor, [his place of 

employment]?

(Footnote Continued) _______________________

1925(b) statement, as it has appended to it documents not admitted into 

evidence. The court directed defense counsel, within seven days of the date 

of the order, to “file an Amended Concise Statement of Matters Complained 

of on Appeal with the documents improperly attached to the original one 

removed.” PCRA Court Order, 2/23/16. On February 26, 2016, Attorney 

Kreisman filed a 22-page “Second Concise Statement of Matters Complained 

of on Appeal,” raising fourteen claims of trial and appellate counsel 

ineffectiveness, and one claim of trial court error. That same day counsel 

filed an “Addendum to Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on 

Appeal,” raising additional claims. The PCRA court, “in the interests of 

judicial economy,” did not review or consider the improperly attached 

documents or the addendum to the Rule 1925(b) statement. 

5 Commonwealth v. Kloiber, 106 A.2d 820 (Pa. 1954).
J-S35004-17

- 6 -

8. [Whether trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for 

failing to argue that John Mudd, Jr. was incompetent to 

testify due to hypnosis? 

9. [Whether trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for 

failing to pursue the issue of missing discovery]? 

10. [Whether trial and appellate counsel were ineffective 

for failing to challenge the imposition of a life sentence of 

incarceration]? [6] 

11. Did trial attorney Mark Rubenstein offer ineffective 

assistance of counsel when he failed to bring an 

investigator to the interview with Commonwealth witness 

Kimberly Altman Adkin? 

Appellant’s Brief, at 2-3.

Preliminarily, we note that “[o]ur standard of review of the denial of 

PCRA relief is clear; we are limited to determining whether the PCRA court’s 

findings are supported by the record and without legal error.” 

Commonwealth v. Wojtaszek, 951 A.2d 1169, 1170 (Pa. Super. 2008). 

We will not disturb the PCRA court's factual findings “unless there is no 

support for [those] findings in the certified record.” Commonwealth v. 

Melendez–Negron, 123 A.3d 1087, 1090 (Pa. Super. 2015).

When analyzing ineffectiveness claims, “[w]e begin . . . with the 

presumption that that counsel [was] effective.” Commonwealth v. Spotz, 

18 A.3d 244, 259–60 (Pa. 2011). “[T]he [petitioner] bears the burden of 

proving ineffectiveness.” Commonwealth v. Ligons, 971 A.2d 1125, 1137 

____________________________________________

6

For clarity, we have replaced some of the language in Slutzker’s issues and 

replaced it with the Commonwealth’s wording, in brackets, as stated in the 

Commonwealth’s counter-statement of the issues involved. 
J-S35004-17

- 7 -

(Pa. 2009). To overcome the presumption of effectiveness, a PCRA 

petitioner must demonstrate that: “(1) the underlying substantive claim has 

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

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

petitioner suffered prejudice as a result of counsel's deficient performance.” 

Id. An ineffectiveness claim will be denied if the petitioner fails to establish 

any one of these prongs. Id.

After a review of the parties’ briefs, the relevant case law and the 

certified record on appeal, we agree with the PCRA court that Slutzker is not 

entitled to collateral relief. The PCRA court’s findings are supported in the 

record, and we find no error of law. We, therefore, rely upon the Honorable 

Jeffrey A. Manning’s opinion in affirming the order denying PCRA relief. We 

instruct the parties to attach a copy of that decision in the event of further 

proceedings in the matter.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/7/2017
Circulated 06/16/2017 02:02 PM