J-S17004-16 

_____________________________ 

*Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA 

 Appellee 

v. 

ROBERT MARCHETTI 

 Appellant No. 1952 WDA 2014 

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 25, 2014 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0007143-2007 

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., SHOGAN, J., and FITZGERALD, J.* 

MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED MARCH 30, 2016 

 Appellant, Robert Marchetti, appeals from the order entered in the 

Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, which denied his first petition 

brought pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”).1 We affirm. 

 In its opinion, the PCRA court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant 

facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to 

restate them. 

 Appellant raises the following issue for our review: 

DID THE [PCRA] COURT ERR IN DENYING APPELLANT’S 

PCRA PETITION SINCE TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE 

FOR FAILING TO ADVISE APPELLANT REGARDING THE 

ROLE AND NECESSITY OF CHARACTER WITNESSES, FOR 

____________________________________________ 

1

 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. 
J-S17004-16 

- 2 - 

IMPROPERLY ADVISING AND/OR COERCING APPELLANT 

NOT TO CALL CHARACTER WITNESSES, AND FOR 

INCORRECTLY DECIDING NOT TO CALL CHARACTER 

WITNESSES AT APPELLANT’S TRIAL, ESPECIALLY SINCE 

SEVERAL WERE AVAILABLE AND WILLING AND TRIAL 

COUNSEL KNEW OF THEIR AVAILABILITY AND 

WILLINGNESS TO TESTIFY? 

(Appellant’s Brief at 3). 

 Our standard of review of the denial of a PCRA petition is limited to 

examining whether the evidence of record supports the court’s 

determination and whether its decision is free of legal error. 

Commonwealth v. Conway, 14 A.3d 101 (Pa.Super. 2011), appeal denied, 

612 Pa. 687, 29 A.3d 795 (2011). This Court grants great deference to the 

findings of the PCRA court if the record contains any support for those 

findings. Commonwealth v. Boyd, 923 A.2d 513 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal 

denied, 593 Pa. 754, 932 A.2d 74 (2007). We give no such deference, 

however, to the court’s legal conclusions. Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 

A.3d 1190, 1194 (Pa.Super. 2012). Traditionally, credibility issues are 

resolved by the trier of fact who had the opportunity to observe the 

witnesses’ demeanor. Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 553 Pa. 485, 527, 

720 A.2d 79, 99 (1998), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 810, 120 S.Ct. 41, 145 

L.Ed.2d 38 (1999). Where the record supports the PCRA court’s credibility 

resolutions, they are binding on this Court. Id. 

 The law presumes counsel has rendered effective assistance. 

Commonwealth v. Williams, 597 Pa. 109, 950 A.2d 294 (2008). When 
J-S17004-16 

- 3 - 

asserting a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the petitioner is 

required to demonstrate that: (1) the underlying claim is of arguable merit; 

(2) counsel had no reasonable strategic basis for his action or inaction; and, 

(3) but for the errors and omissions of counsel, there is a reasonable 

probability that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different. 

Commonwealth v. Kimball, 555 Pa. 299, 724 A.2d 326 (1999). The 

failure to satisfy any prong of the test for ineffectiveness will cause the claim 

to fail. Williams, supra. 

 “The threshold inquiry in ineffectiveness claims is whether the 

issue/argument/tactic which counsel has foregone and which forms the basis 

for the assertion of ineffectiveness is of arguable merit....” Commonwealth 

v. Pierce, 537 Pa. 514, 524, 645 A.2d 189, 194 (1994). “Counsel cannot 

be found ineffective for failing to pursue a baseless or meritless claim.” 

Commonwealth v. Poplawski, 852 A.2d 323, 327 (Pa.Super. 2004). 

Once this threshold is met we apply the ‘reasonable basis’ 

test to determine whether counsel’s chosen course was 

designed to effectuate his client’s interests. If we conclude 

that the particular course chosen by counsel had some 

reasonable basis, our inquiry ceases and counsel’s 

assistance is deemed effective. 

Pierce, supra at 524, 645 A.2d at 194-95 (internal citations omitted). 

Prejudice is established when [an appellant] demonstrates 

that counsel’s chosen course of action had an adverse 

effect on the outcome of the proceedings. The [appellant] 

must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but 

for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the 

proceeding would have been different. A reasonable

probability is a probability sufficient to undermine 
J-S17004-16 

- 4 - 

confidence in the outcome. In [Kimball, supra], we held 

that a “criminal [appellant] alleging prejudice must show 

that counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the 

defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.” 

Commonwealth v. Chambers, 570 Pa. 3, 21-22, 807 A.2d 872, 883 

(2002) (some internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 

 After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the 

applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Kevin G. 

Sasinoski, we conclude Appellant’s issue merits no relief. The PCRA court’s 

opinion fully discusses and properly disposes of the question presented. 

(See PCRA Court Opinion, filed November 16, 2015, at 3-4) (finding: trial 

counsel testified at PCRA hearing that defense relied on whether jury would 

find Appellant’s testimony credible to convince jury of innocence; trial 

counsel testified he did not call potential character witnesses because they 

were unsophisticated and would “blow” case; PCRA counsel established trial 

counsel failed to interview and call character witnesses to testify to 

Appellant’s non-violent, honest, and law-abiding nature in community; 

nevertheless, trial counsel was not ineffective because Appellant waived 

right to call character witnesses; court conducted colloquy at trial in which 

Appellant stated he did not wish to present character witnesses; at trial, 

Appellant testified he had discussed with trial counsel right to call witnesses 

to testify to Appellant’s good character, but he did not wish to present these 

witnesses). The record supports the PCRA court’s decision; therefore, we 

have no reason to disturb it. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the 
J-S17004-16 

- 5 - 

PCRA court’s opinion. 

 Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 3/30/2016 

 
ORIGiNAL ..... ,. 

Michael Streily, Esq. 

District Attorney's Office 

4th Floor - Courthouse 

Pittsburgh, PA 15219 

Scott Coffey, Esq. 

216 Sharon Drive 

Pittsburgh, PA 15221 

0 

\.U 

..J 

COPIES TO: 

HON. KEVIN G. SASINOSKI 

Room 507 - Courthouse 

436 Grant Street 

Pittsburgh, PA 15219 

BY: 

Appellant 

ROBERT MARCHETII, OPINION' 

CC200707143 

vs. 1952 WDA 2014 

COMMONWEAL TH OF PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 

Circulated 02/29/2016 03:08 PM
2 

and the Petition for Allowance of Appeal was filed on June 6, 2012 and subsequently 

denied on September 25, 2012. 

with the agreement of the Commonwealth, entered an order reinstating these rights, 

requested his Petition for Allowance of Appeal rights be reinstated. The PCRA court, 

appointed to represent defendant. The PCRA was amended, wherein defendant 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal to the Supreme Court was filed. Subsequently, on 

August15., 2011, defendant filed a pro-se PCRA Petition and Scott Coffey, Esquire was 

No. 1758 WDA 2008, which affirmed the judgment of sentence on March 31, 201 O. No 

Post sentence motions were denied, and a timely appeal to Superior Court was filed at 

imprisonment on June 24, 2008 at CC200707143 in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. 

Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life 

at No. 1952 WDA 2014. 

Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal. This opinion is filed in response thereto 

This is an appeal of the Order of Court denying defendant's amended PCRA 

petition on November 25, 2014. Defendant filed a timely Notice of Appeal and 

Sasinoski, J. 

OPINION 

ROBERT MARCHETTI, 

Appellant 

CC200707143 

1952 WDA 2014 

vs. 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 
3 

Marchetti. (N.T. 1, pp. 27-29) 

Jason Cutri, Serena Cutri, Stanley Marchetti, Robin Bane, Christina Meneas or Kimberly 

Mr. Gilkes could not offer any definitive reasons why he did not call witnesses 

whole thing." (N.T. 1, pp. 18-19) 

that he believed such witnesses to be unsophisticated people, who "would blow the 

Trial counsel testified that he did not call potential character witnesses, opinion 

side of the story, and his whole fate rested on whether that jury found him believable 

and credible and honest." (N.T. 1, p. 33) 

Gilkes also testified the defense was 11putting [Defendant] on the stand to tell his 

to convinc3e the jury of his innocence." (N.T. 1, p. 16) 

Mr. Gilkes claimed the defense was reliant on whether Defendant "would be able 

PCRA counsel called trial counsel, Arthur Gilkes, Esquire, who testified relative 

to his representation, at an evidentiary hearing. (N.T. 1, p. 16)1 

1 . The Trial Court erred in denying appellant's PCRA Petition since 

trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise appellant regarding 

the role and necessity of character witnesses, for improperly 

advising and/or coercing appellant not to call character witnesses, 

and for incorrectly deciding not to call character witnesses at 

appellant's trial respectfully since several were available and willing 

and trial counsel knew of their availability and willingness to testify. 

allegation of error: 

Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, Defendant alleges the following 

the court held several hearings on this matter. The PCRA court denied relief and the 

defendant appealed at 1942 WDA 2014 on I Vecunber 1, dW I If . In his timely 1925(b) 

Coffey, Esquire, was appointed to represent defendant. The petition was amended and 

Defendant again filed a pro se PCRA petition on October 15, 2012, and Scott 
1 N.T. 1 refers to Notes of PCRA Transcript dated 9/25/2013. Post Conviction Relief Act hearing. 

2 N.T. 2 refers to Notes of PCRA Transcript dated 10/1/2013. 

3 N.T. 3 refers to Notes of Trial Transcript, Volume IV, dated 3/11/2008. 

4 

wish to present character witnesses. The defendant also testified that he had discussed 

with attorney Gilkes the right to call witnesses who would testify about his good 

character for truthfulness or law-abiding nature in the community. The defendant 

testified he did not wish to present such witnesses.3 (N.T. 3, pp. 494-496) 

For these reasons, the Order denying PCRA relief should be affirmed. 

trial, is dispositive of the issue. The defendant indicated in the colloquy that he did not 

Horn, 797 A.2d 983 (Pa. Super. 2002). However, defendant's waiver, after a colloquy at 

failure to present available character witnesses is set forth in Commonwealth v. Van 

defendant waived his right to do so. The law regarding ineffectiveness of counsel for 

was not ineffective for failing to present character evidence at trial because the 

Despite the foregoing, the PCRA court found that trial counsel, Arthur Gilkes, 

would have testified at trial. (N.T. 2, pp .• 2, 31-48)2 

representation in the community as a non-violent, honest and law abiding citizen who 

Several of the purported character witnesses would have testified that defendant had a 

witnesses who were available, and that he failed to interview them. (N.T. 1, pp. 48-53) 

PCRA Counsel also established that trial counsel did not call numerous character 

that it was his [defendant's] choice to call character witnesses. 

Defendant alleges that trial counsel admitted that he did not advise defendant