### J - S52021 - 15

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENN SYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee
v. BENJAMIN J. DENNERLEIN, Appellant No. 2065 WDA 2014 Appeal from the PCRA Order of November 19 , 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County Criminal Division at No(s): CP - 04 - CR - 0001592 - 2009 BEFORE: SHOGAN, OLSON and WECHT, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 16, 2015 Appellant, Benjamin J. Dennerlein, appeals from the order entered on November 18, 2014, denying him relief under the Post
- Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541 - 9546. We affirm. The PCRA court provided us with a thorough and well
- written summary of the underlying facts and procedural posture of this case. As the PCRA court explained:

On July 17, 2009, [Appellant] was charged with [murder]. . . . The charge[] stem[med] from a n incident that occurred in Freedom Borough, Beaver County, Pennsylvania, in either the late evening hours of May 12 or early morning hours of May 13, 2009. The victim, Elizabeth Grosskopf [(hereinafter “the Victim”)], was found dead in her residence at 1 475 Fifth Avenue, Freedom Borough, Beaver County, Pennsylvania. An autopsy determined that [the Victim] died due to multiple stab wounds to the head and neck areas. After an investigation by the Freedom Borough Police and the Beaver County Detectives’ Bu reau, [Appellant] was charged with homicide.

### J - S52021 - 15

- 2 - The case was scheduled for a jury trial before the Honorable John Dohanich. . . . [T]he jury convicted [Appellant] of [first
- degree] murder on August 3, 2010. On September 29, 2010, Judge Dohanich sentenced [ Appellant] to life imprisonment without [the possibility] of parole. No post - sentence motions were filed, but a timely notice of appeal was filed with the Superior Court [] on October 27, 2010. [The Superior Court affirmed Appellant’s judgment of sentenc e on April 2, 2012 and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied Appellant’s petition for allowance of appeal on October 22, 2012]. [Appellant] filed a timely pro se [PCRA] petition[] and [the PCRA court appointed counsel] to represent [Appellant] in the post
- conviction proceeding[s]. [Appointed counsel] filed an amended [PCRA petition on Appellant’s behalf and the PCRA] court conducted a hearing on the petition on August 4, 6[,] and 8[,] 2014. . . . FACTS A. Facts and Evidence Adduced and Presented at Trial in July and August[] 2010

. . . [The following evidence was presented during Appellant’s trial]. [The Victim], age 54, resided at 1475 Fifth Avenue, Freedom, Beaver County, in a residence owned by her and Robert Campbell, a former paramour, with whom she maintained a friendly relationship. [The Victim] was a frail woman in poor health, suffering from various medical conditions[,] which caused her to be unsteady and prone to falling on occasion. [The Victim] and Mr. Campbell purchased the reside nce in 2003, subject to a mortgage; however, the property was titled solely in [the Victim’s] name because of Mr. Campbell’s unstable financial condition. Subsequently, [the Victim] transferred the title by deed dated February 28, 2008, to herself and Mr.

### J - S52021 - 15

- 3 - Campbell, as joint tenants with the right of survivorship. . .

. [The Victim] and Mr. Campbell [] lived together for approximately ten years until May[] 2008, when Mr. Campbell left the residence to commence a live
- in relationship with his current wife, Karen Otrhalik Babich. Mr. Campbell and Ms. Babich commenced their relationship in December[] 2007, which culminated in their marriage in October[] 2008. Mr. Campbell’s last contact with the [V]ictim occurred on May 8, 2009, when she telephoned to infor m him that on May 7, 2009, she had received and deposited the sum of $31,128.14, representing her share of the proceeds from the sale of her parents’ cottage in Erie. They discussed the uses to which she could put the funds. [The Victim] maintained a per sonal checking/credit/debit account with the Northern Lights branch of ESB Bank[,] which she opened [on] May 19, 1997. The account was limited to withdrawals of $510.00 per 24
- hour period. Mr. Campbell was introduced to [Appellant] approximately four yea rs prior to the [V]ictim’s death while both were inmates in the Beaver County [Jail] for reasons unrelated to the instant case. Upon release from incarceration, Mr. Campbell and [Appellant] maintained a friendly relationship, and [Appellant] resided with Mr. Campbell [and the Victim] from time to time when he was in need of a temporary residence. All three individuals were users of and smoked cocaine together on occasion. In December[] 2008, and continuing until the time of [the Victim’s] death, [Appella nt] resided at the [V]ictim’s home, paying rent in the amount of $50.00 per week. [Appellant] was employed at Crow’s Run Recycling as a salesperson from 2008 through May 13, 2009. Prior to her death, [the Victim] was employed as a cashier at the Center T ownship Wal
- Mart. [The Victim] last worked on May 11, 2009, from 11:00 [a.m.] until 8:00 [p.m.] and was observed at work by her neighbor, Dwight McMorris, while he was shopping at [the] Wal
- Mart. Mr. McMorris subsequently observed the [V]ictim between 8: 40 [p.m.] and 8:50 [p.m.] on the same day as she drove by his home

### J - S52021 - 15

- 4 - on the way to her residence after completing her work day. Mr. McMorris was the last person other than the perpetrator to see [the Victim] alive. [The Victim] was scheduled to work on May 12, 2009, from 11:00 [a.m.] to 8:00 [p.m.]; however, she did not appear for work [or] call to indicate that she would not be present for work that day, which was unlike her because she was a reliable employee. Shortly before her death, [the Victim] repor ted to one of her co
- workers, Nancy Pranskey, that [Appellant] had been stealing from her and using her credit/debit card to purchase items. Bank records disclosed that on May 5, 2009, [the Victim’s] bank account had been overdrawn by $741.11 as a result of eight transactions. [Appellant] also did not appear at his place of employment on May 12, 2009, and terminated his employment due to a disagreement with his employer, Nick D’Itri, by way of a text message on May 13, 2009, at 12:52 [p.m.] [Appellant] h ad been a good employee until approximately one month prior to terminating his employment when he began not reporting for work. The prior week he failed to appear for work on four consecutive days. His employer suspected that drug use was responsible for [Appellant’s] decline in performance. [Appellant’s] last working day was May 11, 2009. Between 10:00 [a.m.] and 10:30 [a.m.] on May 12, 2009, Mr. Campbell sought [Appellant] at his place of employment. Not locating him at work, Mr. Campbell proceeded to the [V]ictim’s residence and found [Appellant] present. Mr. Campbell noted that [Appellant] appeared to be under the influence of drugs. When Mr. Campbell inquired of [Appellant] as to the whereabouts of the [V]ictim, [Appellant] replied that he had tak en her to work earlier that morning, because he was in need of her vehicle to run errands. Mr. Campbell, who maintained various items of personal property at the residence, searched the home to assure that his belongings were present and was followed thro ugh the house by [Appellant]. When looking into the [V]ictim’s bedroom, Mr. Campbell observed that the bed had been made, which was unusual because the [V]ictim was a poor housekeeper and never made the bed. [Appellant] was directly behind Mr. Campbell a s he was in

### J - S52021 - 15

- 5 - the doorway to the [V]ictim’s bedroom. [Appellant] and Mr. Campbell became involved in a heated argument over [Appellant] not working to pay rent to the [V]ictim and his drug use. Mr. Campbell informed [Appellant] that he would return to the residence between 8:30 [p.m.] and 9:00 [p.m.], when the [V]ictim returned from work, to speak with [Appellant] and the [V]ictim. Later in the same day at 3:25 [p.m.] [Appellant], using the [V]ictim’s credit/debit card, made a balance inquiry at ESB Bank located at 921 Third Avenue in New Brighton. [Appellant], utilizing the [V]ictim’s credit/debit card, purchased various items at the Chippewa Township K
- Mart between 6:51 [p.m.] and 7:09 [p.m.] and proceeded to the home of Gregory “Wimpy” Price and Wendy McCoy to deliver items to Mr. Price, including video games, movies[,] and an electric can opener, to reimburse Mr. Price for tires that he purchased. . . . [B]etween 8:30 [p.m.] and 9:00 [p.m.] on May 12, 2009, Mr. Campbell and his wife returned to the [V ]ictim’s residence and found no one present. The [V]ictim’s vehicle was not in the area. Throughout the evening and into the early morning hours of May 13, 2009, Mr. Campbell attempted on 30 occasions to reach [Appellant] and on 17 occasions to contact t he [V]ictim by telephone and through text messages[,] indicating his desire to speak to them. He received no responses, except that [Appellant] sent a text message advising that the Baden police would be interested in Mr. Campbell’s use of marijuana. Dur ing the evening, Mr. Campbell and his wife left and returned to the [V]ictim’s residence on two additional occasions and did not find anyone or the [V]ictim’s automobile at the home. They left for the final time at approximately 12:00 [a.m.], returned to their residence[,] and retired for the night. On May 13, 2009, at approximately 12:26 [a.m.], [Appellant] checked into Room 12 of the Beaver Falls Motel in Beaver Falls, following which he contacted Laura Rankin[ and] ask[ed] her to join him in smoking crack cocaine. Ms. Rankin telephoned Jennifer Burns, requesting that she provide transportation to the motel. Jennifer Burns and Bryan Silberger retrieved Ms. Rankin and her infant child and drove to the motel to meet [Appellant]. Ronald “Toot”

### J - S52021 - 15

- 6 - Goodman, the father of a child with Ms. Burns, and Patrick Brown, a supplier of crack cocaine for [Appellant], also appeared at the motel. Mr. Brown provided the cocaine to [Appellant]. [Appellant], when asked the reason for being in possessing of the [V]ictim’s vehicle, informed Ms. Rankin that the [V]ictim was away on vacation visiting her niece in Maryland or Virginia. [Appellant] told Mr. Silberger that the [V]ictim was away in Maryland to visit her brother for a week. [Appellant], in an effort to assure Mr . Brown, his cocaine supplier, that he had sufficient funds when requesting Mr. Brown to provide an advance of drugs, had previously forwarded a text message to him on May 9, 2009, showing a balance in the [V]ictim’s bank account of $29,712.14. [Appellant ] and the other individuals smoked crack cocaine throughout the early morning hours of May 13, 20[09], until approximately 5:00 [a.m.] During that time, [Appellant] and Ms. Rankin left the motel and proceeded to two convenience stores to purchase items an d attempted to obtain funds using the [V]ictim’s credit/debit card. At one point in time, [Appellant] advised Ms. Rankin that he was using the [V]ictim’s credit/debit card, showed her the balance in the account and stated to her, “stick with me and good t hings will happen[.”] Mr. Campbell, accompanied by two friends, Martin Costanza and Justin Hertnecky, proceeded to the [V]ictim’s residence on May 13, 2009, between 8:30 [a.m.] and 9:00 [a.m.] No one was present and the [V]ictim’s car was not at the resi dence. The three of them gathered [Appellant’s] belongings, placed them in garbage bags[,] and stored the bags in the garage of the residence. Mr. Campbell opened the [V]ictim’s bedroom door and found the bed in the same condition as the day before, as i f it had not been disturbed. They then left the residence and returned to Mr. Campbell’s house for the balance of the morning. Mr. Campbell’s intention was to evict [Appellant]. After leaving the motel and driving his friends home, [Appellant] claimed t o have returned to the [V]ictim’s residence to locate her, found that she was not present, that her bed did not appear to have been slept in, and then proceeded to the Beaver Valley Mall. At 1:15 [p.m.] on May 13, 2009, [Appellant] presented a check made payable on the [V]ictim’s account to himself in the amount of

### J - S52021 - 15

- 7 - $1,000.00 at the ESB Bank in Beaver Falls. The memo portion of the check indicated the words, “roof/porch[.”] [Appellant] explained that he had performed work for the [V]ictim and the check re presented payment. Ms. Celeste, the [V]ictim’s [next
- door] neighbor, indicated that no recent work had been done on the house. The bank representative requested identification from [Appellant], since he did not have an account with the bank, and he provi ded his driver’s license. The check was drawn on the Northern Lights ESB Bank located in Baden. The Beaver Falls ESB Bank manager telephoned the Northern Lights branch and obtained a facsimile of the signature card of the [V]ictim. The Beaver Falls bran ch manager also placed two telephone calls to the [V]ictim’s residence and the telephone was not answered on either occasion. After being unable to verify [Appellant’s] correct address and telephone number or the [V]ictim’s signature, the bank refused to cash the check and returned the check to [Appellant]. Trooper Robert Negherborn, a forensic document examiner with the Pennsylvania State Police Crime Laboratory, recovered from the face of the subsequent check in the [V]ictim’s checkbook the impression o f the writing depicting the text of the previous check payable to [Appellant], including the authorizing signature. [Trooper Negherborn] was further provided with handwriting samples of the [V]ictim and [Appellant]. Although not issuing a conclusive opin ion, Trooper Negherborn testified that in comparing the writing on the check with the samples of the handwriting of the [V]ictim and [Appellant], there was a strong probability that the signature on the check was not that of the [V]ictim. He further opine d that there were no significant similarities to indicate that the [V]ictim or [Appellant] wrote the entries on the check, or that [Appellant] wrote the signature on the check. At approximately 2:00 [p.m.] on May 13, 2009, [Appellant] purchased tennis sho es at the Shoe Department Store at the Beaver Valley Mall using the [V]ictim’s credit/debit card. A short time later[,] he attempted to return the tennis shoes for a cash refund without the credit/debit card and was refused. [Appellant] was accompanied b y Ms. Rankin and met Mr. Price while at the Beaver Valley Mall and purchased other items with the [V]ictim’s credit/debit card.

### J - S52021 - 15

- 8 - He also attempted to buy tennis shoes for Mr. Price using the [V]ictim’s credit/debit card and was refused. At approximately 1 :00 [p.m.], Kelly Carter, who had previously made payment of $500.00 for the purchase of an automobile from [Appellant], telephoned [Appellant] informing him that he was at the residence desiring to retrieve the vehicle from the garage. [Appellant] advise d Mr. Carter that he would not arrive for a period of time, and Mr. Carter waited. When [Appellant] failed to appear, Mr. Carter made a second telephone call, at which time [Appellant] instructed Mr. Carter to enter the home to obtain the remote control f or the garage door. At the direction of [Appellant], Mr. Carter entered the house by way of a window and was unable to locate the remote control while continuing to speak to [Appellant] on the telephone. Mr. Carter then telephoned Mr. Campbell, who subse quently arrived and informed Mr. Carter that he was in possession of the remote control and would not permit the removal of the vehicle until [Appellant] appeared. Mr. Carter placed a third call to [Appellant], who indicated he would return later. Both M r. Campbell and Mr. Carter observed what appeared to be blood on the [V]ictim’s dog and entered the house to investigate. Mr. Campbell entered the [V]ictim’s bedroom and discovered a pool of blood on the bed where the blanket had been pulled away. He cal led Mr. Carter into the bedroom to observe the blood. Mr. Carter then telephoned [Appellant], informed him of their findings[,] and inquired whether he knew the whereabouts of the [V]ictim, to which [Appellant] replied that he thought she was at work. Mr . Carter told [Appellant] he should return to the residence immediately. [Appellant] indicated that he was at the Beaver Valley Mall and would return home at a later time. He also stated that he had not been at the residence for several days. Mr. Campbe ll, after contacting the [V]ictim’s employer and the hospital in an unsuccessful attempt to locate her, placed a call to [911] at 2:54 [p.m.] Freedom Borough Chief of Police John Hill and Officer William Dreyer of the Freedom Borough Police Department res ponded to the call at approximately 3:00 [p.m.] Andrew Gall of the Beaver County Detective Bureau received a call for assistance from the Freedom police officers at 3:10 [p.m.] and responded to the residence with

### J - S52021 - 15

- 9 - County Detectives Timothy Staub, Kim Cleme nts, Timmie Patrick[,] and Robert Chamberlain. A search of the residence disclosed the [V]ictim’s body wrapped in blankets in a stairwell on the second floor leading to the attic, which was located between the bedrooms of the [V]ictim and [Appellant] and could be accessed from both bedrooms. The police found no evidence of forced entry into the home. When informed of [the Victim’s] death, Mr. Campbell became extremely distraught. As a result of receiving information from Ms. Rankin’s mother that Ms. Ran kin was with [Appellant] in her vehicle at the Beaver Valley Mall, a BOLO (be on look out) alert was broadcast for [Appellant], the [V]ictim’s vehicle[,] and the vehicle being operated by Ms. Rankin and owned by [Ms. Rankin’s] mother. Ms. Rankin received telephone calls from a friend and her mother advising that the names of [Appellant] and Ms. Rankin were heard on the [police] scanner indicating that the police were attempting to locate [Appellant]. Detective Patrick proceeded to [Appellant’s] place of e mployment and in speaking to Mr. D’Itri[,] found that [Appellant] last worked on May 12, 2009, and terminated his employment on May 13, 2009. Mr. D’Itri provided [Appellant’s] cellular telephone number to Detective Patrick, who attempted several calls and text messages to [Appellant] with no response. At 6:07 [p.m.], Officer Maxim Strano of the Center Township Police Department, in response to the alert, located [Appellant] and Ms. Rankin in the automobile being operated by Ms. Rankin as it was backing ou t of a parking space at the Beaver Valley Mall. [Appellant] stated to Ms. Rankin “to go or he was going to run[.”] Officer Strano drew his weapon, ordered both individuals to the ground, approached [Appellant,] and placed [Appellant] in handcuffs. [Appe llant] stated that he thought about running and should have run when he saw the officer. [Appellant] also indicated that Officer Strano had the wrong man. The [V]ictim’s credit/debit card was found in [Appellant’s] wallet. The [V]ictim’s vehicle was als o located a short distance away.

### J - S52021 - 15

- 10 - [Appellant] and Ms. Rankin were transported to the Center Township Police Department. At 6:39 [p.m.], [Appellant] waived his [ Miranda ] rights and agreed to speak with Detectives Patrick and Clements. [Appellant] was info rmed of [the Victim’s] death and showed no emotion. He indicated that in the evening hours of May 11, 2009, he and his girlfriend, Colleen Cantella, were at the [V]ictim’s residence viewing the Pittsburgh Penguins/Washington Capitals hockey game. [Appell ant] further advised that the [V]ictim came home from work during the hockey game. According to [Appellant], Ms. Cantella departed after the hockey game to return to her residence. This information was contrary to the statement made by Ms. Cantella that she was not at the [V]ictim’s residence on May 11 th 

### and that [she and Appellant] had exchanged text messages between 9:23 [p.m.] and 10:07 [p.m.] near the end of the hockey game, when she was at her own residence. . . . [Appellant] stated that on May 12, 2009, he drove the [V]ictim to work at Wal
- Mart at approximately 10:00 [a.m.], attended to several errands[,] and returned to the residence, when he made contact with Mr. Campbell and a verbal argument ensued. After the disagreement with Mr. Campbell, he advised that he left the residence, ran a few more errands[,] and went on a crack cocaine binge. He stated that he returned to Wal
- Mart between 8:00 [p.m.] and 8:30 [p.m.] to pick up [the Victim], and when she did not come out to the vehicle, he went int o the store and was told that she was not at work all day. He also advised the detectives that he tried to call [the Victim] and received no reply. The [V]ictim did not report to work on May 12, 2009, and video footage of the entrance and the customer se rvice area of Wal
- Mart disclosed that [Appellant] did not appear at the relevant time. . . . [Appellant] obtained crack cocaine from Mr. Price and checked into the Beaver Falls Motel to smoke crack cocaine with Ms. Rankin and her friends. They all remain ed at the motel into the early morning hours of May 13, 2009. [Appellant] advised that he checked out of the Beaver Falls Motel at approximately 11:00 [a.m.] and returned to the residence to look for the [V]ictim. He found that her bed was made and did n ot appear to have been slept in. [Appellant] then proceeded to the Beaver Valley Mall where

### J - S52021 - 15

- 11 - he met Mr. Price and offered to purchase tennis shoes for him as payment for cocaine previously supplied by Mr. Price. [Appellant] attempted purchases at two sepa rate retail locations using the [V]ictim’s credit/debit card and was rejected. [Appellant] advised that he had the information regarding the [V]ictim’s credit/debit card, including the [V]ictim’s personal identification number (PIN) to access the account. [Appellant] related that he obtained the credit/debit card from the [V]ictim’s purse located in the kitchen of the residence. The detectives were unable to locate the [V]ictim’s purse in the kitchen of the home and subsequently found it in the [V]ictim’s vehicle. Upon receiving this information, [Appellant] informed the detectives that he had taken the credit/debit card out of the [V]ictim’s purse and placed the purse in the automobile. [Appellant] claimed to have permission from the [V]ictim to use the credit/debit card. . . . Near the conclusion of the interview, which lasted approximately one hour, [Appellant] stated to the detectives that if they were going to arrest him for murder to do so. He further stated that “all I have to do is convince one person” that he did not commit the offense. The [V]ictim’s purse, Wal
- Mart identification card, driver’s license, checkbook[,] and cellular telephones were all located in the [V]ictim’s vehicle, which was in the possession of [Appellant]. Prosecutors ac quired the [V]ictim’s bank records for the period from May 1, 2009, through May 31, 2009, the telephone records of [Appellant] from May 8, 2009, through May 14, 2009, and located various receipts for purchases and automatic teller machine (ATM) withdrawals from the [V]ictim’s account in the vehicles of the [V]ictim and Ms. Rankin and in the trash bin at the Beaver Falls Motel. . . . In addition, Detective Chamberlain obtained documentation from Verizon Wireless depicting the sites of cellular telephone to wers in Beaver County from which he was able to confirm the approximate location of [Appellant] when he was using his cellular telephone. This information, together with the known observations of [Appellant] from witnesses and the video displays of [Appel lant] at bank ATM and retail locations, placed [Appellant] in the area of the [V]ictim’s

### J - S52021 - 15

- 12 - residence during the hours when she would have been killed and at the various locations at which he made ATM withdrawals and purchases using the [V]ictim’s credit/debi t card. An examination of [Appellant’s] blue jeans and tennis shoes under a blue light revealed possible blood stains. Samples of the blood of the [V]ictim and [Appellant], together with [Appellant’s] blue jeans, were delivered to the Pennsylvania State Police Crime Laboratory for analysis. Jennifer Badger, a forensic scientist in the serology section, determined that two stains on the outside seam of the lower leg of [Appellant’s] blue jeans consisted of blood. She further detected the presence of blo od on the eyelet of the toe of [Appellant’s] left athletic shoe, but the sample was insufficient for a confirmatory testing for blood. In addition, examination of the handle of a steak knife found in the kitchen sink of the [V]ictim’s residence submitted to the crime laboratory disclosed evidence of blood. Ms. Badger prepared samples of dried blood of the [V]ictim and [Appellant] and swabs of the blood on [Appellant’s] jeans, tennis shoes[,] and the steak knife for submission to the DNA section of the cri me laboratory. Michael Biondi, a forensic scientist supervisor in the DNA section, conducted DNA testing on the swabs of [Appellant’s] blue jeans and determined that the blood on the jeans matched the [V]ictim’s blood. The DNA profiles of the [V]ictim an d [Appellant] could not be excluded as potential contributors of the blood stain from [Appellant’s] shoe. The DNA profile of the [V]ictim was excluded as a contributor as to the knife in the kitchen sink, while the DNA profile of [Appellant] could not be excluded as a contributor for the blood on the knife, because there also appeared DNA types from two unidentified individuals. Dr. James Smith, a forensic pathologist, determined that due to observing the greenish discoloration of the body, signifying the first sign of decomposition, the [V]ictim’s death occurred within an 18
- hour to 36
- hour period between 3:00 [a.m.] and 9:00 [p.m.] on May 12, 2009. Dr. Smith opined that the cause of death was the stab wounds to the neck which incised the right carotid a rtery and the right jugular vein. He noted a total of 46 knife wounds, 34 of which were located in the left neck region. Dr. Smith

### J - S52021 - 15

- 13 - further described defensive wounds on the [V]ictim’s hands and fingers indicating that the [V]ictim attempted to ward off h er attacker. He testified that the concentration of the wounds in the neck area was an indication the [V]ictim was held down and was struck with such force as to penetrate from the left through the right side of the neck. Dr. Smith estimated that the bla de of the knife was approximately one - half inch in width and three inches in length. The manner of death was homicide. James Sarver met [Appellant] on May 15, 2009, while both were inmates in the Beaver County Jail. Mr. Sarver also was familiar with Mr. Campbell from whom he had purchased marijuana in the past. Mr. Sarver related that [Appellant] admitted to him that he had killed [the Victim] and intended to place blame on Mr. Campbell for the crime. In a second conversation with Mr. Sarver, [Appellan t] queried as to why Mr. Campbell came to the [V]ictim’s residence and removed the sheets on the bed revealing the pool of blood. [Appellant] informed Mr. Sarver of the limit of $500.00 on the [V]ictim’s credit/debit card and confirmed that he went partyi ng and shopping after the killing. Mr. Sarver testified that he had previously been a visitor at the [V]ictim’s residence, [but was] limited [] to the main floor of the house. Zack Valentine was [Appellant’s] cellmate at the Beaver County Jail for approx imately two weeks. On May 18, 2009, Mr. Valentine provided a statement to police in which he indicated that he had become acquainted with [Appellant] prior to their incarceration while working at Crow’s Run Recycling. Mr. Valentine stated that [Appellant ] acknowledged that he had killed the victim, wrapped her in a blue blanket and placed her body in the stairway to the attic between the two bedrooms in the [V]ictim’s residence. [Appellant] also outlined [to Mr. Valentine] the layout of the house and pro vided a diagram detailing the location of the bedrooms and the doorways from each bedroom to the attic. [Appellant] further described [to Mr. Valentine] the placement of a tan blanket covering the blood on the bed and complained that Mr. Campbell had pull ed the blanket away exposing the blood. Mr. Valentine, who had never been to the residence, drew a diagram of the residence for the police based upon [Appellant’s] description. Mr.

### J - S52021 - 15

- 14 - Valentine had been unaware of the homicide until his conversation with [A ppellant]. [Appellant] presented evidence in an effort to place culpability for the crime on Mr. Campbell by attempting to demonstrate that he had been physically abusive toward the [V]ictim and that he had a financial motive for killing her. Mr. Campbel l testified that the [V]ictim called him shortly after he had moved out of the house and into Ms. Babich’s residence, indicating that she desired to title the home in both of their names. Ms. Babich, who was a mortgage processor and notary public, fabrica ted the transfer by having the deed prepared, notarizing [the Victim’s] signature, recording the deed and paying the recording fee and transfer taxes, for which she was subsequently reimbursed. Patricia Celeste, the [next
- door] neighbor and friend of the [V]ictim, observed a black eye on the [V]ictim on one occasion and her leg to be injured at a subsequent meeting, both injuries which the [V]ictim attributed to [Appellant]. When Ms. Celeste confronted [Appellant] regarding the incidents, he apologized fo r his actions. He further explained that the black eye occurred when he became angry with the [V]ictim for refusing to eat dinner he had prepared and he had struck the [V]ictim with the food plate.

. . . Stacie Delp, Kristine Ramer[,] and Nancy Pranskey , all co
workers of the [V]ictim, noted black eyes on the [V]ictim, with Ms. Delp also observing the injured leg. Only Ms. Pranskey testified that the [V]ictim told her that the injuries were inflicted by Mr. Campbell. On the evening of May 9, 2009, whil e Mr. Campbell, his wife[,] and his friend, Martin Costanza, were patrons at Harvey Run Inn, a local tavern, Crystal Barnes, an employee, overheard Mr. Campbell, following a telephone conversation, say loudly to his wife, “cha
- ching, cha
ching[.”] Ms. Bar nes admitted to being unaware of the meaning of Mr. Campbell’s remarks. Approximately two to three months following the [V]ictim’s death, Mr. Campbell was advised by correspondence from Wal
- Mart, the

### J - S52021 - 15

- 15 - [V]ictim’s employer, that he was the beneficiary of the [V]ictim’s retirement account in the amount of $1,893.34 and life insurance benefits in the amount of $22,000.00. The [V]ictim had designated Mr. Campbell the beneficiary as her common
- law husband on June 27, 2005, approximately four years prior to her d eath. Mr. Campbell denied any knowledge that he was the [V]ictim’s beneficiary prior to receiving notice from her employer. He, in fact, received the proceeds from both the retirement account and the life insurance as a result of [the Victim’s] death. M r. Campbell also was the surviving joint tenant of the residence, and thus became sole owner following the [V]ictim’s death. Testimony indicated that the balance of the mortgage was approximately $30,000.00 with the value of the home estimated at $10,000. 00 due to its deteriorated condition. In rebuttal, the Commonwealth introduced the medical records of the [V]ictim from Heritage Valley
- Beaver Hospital for the period from 2004 through 2008, which revealed that she was treated on several occasions as a result of injuries sustained by falling. . . . [During trial, the] thrust of [Appellant’s] defense was that Mr. Campbell had the motive and opportunity to kill the [V]ictim, since he would benefit financially by her death, and that he had physically abuse d the [V]ictim in the past. B. Facts and Evidence Adduced at the PCRA Hearing Held on August 4, 6[,] and 8 2014 1. [Appellant’s Trial Counsel,] Thomas Kurt Fuchel As noted earlier, the [PCRA] court conducted a hearing on [Appellant’s PCRA] petition on August 4, 6[,] and 8, 2014. The [PCRA] court heard testimony during parts of each of those three days. . . . [Appellant] first called Thomas Kurt Fuchel, Sr., Esquir e [(hereinafter “Attorney Fuchel”)], who was lead defense counsel at the time of trial. He was assisted by a new public defender at that time named Rebecca Fields, who was not called to testify by either party at the PCRA hearing. [Attorney Fuchel] first testified that it was protocol or procedure, at the time of [Appellant’s] trial,

### J - S52021 - 15

- 16 - for an Assistant Public Defender to begin representation in a case at the preliminary hearing stage and continue with the case through trial. [Attorney Fuchel] did that in t his case. [Attorney Fuchel] testified that he handled the preliminary hearing. He testified that it was his practice to speak with the client prior to the preliminary hearing in the lock
- up facility. He did not recall whether he met with [Appellant] before the preliminary hearing in this case, but indicated that was his standard practice. [Attorney Fuchel] could not provide any specific information as to when he met with [Appellant]. He did admit that it was significant to meet with the client early in the case to discuss strategy and to discuss what the [client] did or did not do or know in connection with the charges. [Attorney Fuchel] indicated that the Commonwealth provided extensive discovery. According to [Attorney Fuchel], [Appellant] complaine d about not receiving discovery, and [Attorney Fuchel] claims that this prompted him to make sure [Appellant] received the discovery. [Attorney Fuchel] stated that he believed it was his decision regarding what portions of the discovery or other informati on to use in this case. [Attorney Fuchel] claimed that he had discussions with [Appellant], both before and during trial, regarding what information to use. He conceded that use of prior criminal convictions under [Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence] 609 is a significant tool to impeach witnesses for the opposing side. [Within Appellant’s PCRA petition, Appellant first claimed that trial counsel was ineffective for failing] to use prior convictions and other information for purposes of impeaching key Commonwe alth witnesses. [Appellant’s counsel] at the PCRA hearing initially questioned [Attorney Fuchel] about a Commonwealth witness by the name of Laura Rankin. [Ms.] Rankin had, and testified to, information regarding [Appellant] using the [V]ictim’s credit/d ebit [card] to make bank withdrawals. [Attorney Fuchel] testified that it was his theory that Robert Campbell, who was a former boyfriend of the [V]ictim, committed the murder. [Attorney Fuchel] continued by stating that he believed that [Ms.] Rankin was actually a helpful witness to the defense because she also had information that

### J - S52021 - 15

- 17 - [Appellant] used the [V]ictim’s credit/debit card not only at and shortly after the time of the murder, but also prior to that time. [Ms.] Rankin also testified that [Appella nt] had the PIN for the credit card further confirming, according to [Attorney Fuchel], that her testimony would actually indicate that [Appellant] did not just use the credit card after the murder, but also before the murder showing his consented
- to acces s to the card. [Attorney Fuchel] thought this was beneficial testimony. . . . [Appellant’s] counsel at the PCRA hearing pointed out and entered exhibits to confirm that [Ms.] Rankin had convictions for retail theft, trademark counterfeiting[,] and theft by unlawful taking, all of which were . . . crimen falsi
. The Commonwealth confirmed, on cross
- examination, that [Attorney Fuchel] did not want to impeach [Ms.] Rankin because she was actually favorable to [Appellant’s] position in this case. However, [ Appellant’s] counsel noted for the [PCRA] court that . . . [Attorney Fuchel] cross
- examined [Ms.] Rankin about using crack cocaine in the presence of her child, which was a form of impeachment, but yet chose not to impeach her credibility with [the prior c onvictions for] crimen falsi
. [During Appellant’s trial, t]he second Commonwealth witness who had prior criminal convictions was Zachery Valentine. [Mr.] Valentine was [Appellant’s] cell mate at the Beaver County Jail, and [Mr.] Valentine testified at tr ial regarding [Appellant’s] admissions about his ([Appellant’s]) involvement in the killing. [Attorney Fuchel] testified that he discussed [Mr.] Valentine with [Appellant], and according to [Attorney Fuchel], [Appellant] confirmed that some of the stateme nts that [Mr.] Valentine made in a report of interview were true. [Attorney Fuchel] claims that he continuously cautioned [Appellant] not to have conversations with [Mr.] Valentine. [Appellant] never admitted his guilt to [Attorney Fuchel], but, accordin g to [Attorney Fuchel], [Appellant] did confirm some of the things that [Mr.] Valentine said. Interestingly and bewildering to the [PCRA] court was [Attorney Fuchel’s] concern about perjury if [Appellant] testified at trial because [Appellant] allegedly s aid he was

### J - S52021 - 15

- 18 - going to lie at trial regarding the statements that [Mr.] Valentine made. This had very little, if anything, to do with regard to why [Attorney Fuchel] did not cross
- examine [Mr.] Valentine. When pressed by [Appellant’s] counsel at the PCRA he aring, [Attorney Fuchel] confirmed that he [should have] impeach[ed] this type of witness. [Mr.] Valentine had a conviction for theft by deception, and another conviction in Fayette County. [Attorney Fuchel] confirmed that he did not question [Mr.] Valen tine about these matters, and [Attorney Fuchel] indicated that it was inadvertent not to use them, that they must have slipped through the cracks[,] and that his decision not to use them was bad in hindsight. A third Commonwealth witness who testified aga inst [Appellant at trial] was James Sarver. [Mr.] Sarver was another jailhouse informant, who indicated that [Appellant] admitted to the killing. [Mr.] Sarver also had a conviction for terroristic threats. Although not a crimen falsi crime, [Mr.] Sarver was on probation, and [Attorney Fuchel] could have questioned [Mr.] Sarver on whether he expected any favorable treatment on a probation violation, which was never done. [Attorney Fuchel] did question [Mr.] Sarver about a simple assault charge that was d ismissed. . . . [Attorney Fuchel] conceded that, in hindsight, he should have used the terroristic threats probationary situation for cross - examination purposes at trial. [Attorney Fuchel] could not explain his failure to use this information. A fourth Commonwealth witness who testified [during Appellant’s trial] was Kelly Carter. [Mr.] Carter came to the residence after the crime and was present when Robert Campbell, the person who [Attorney Fuchel] intended to pin blame on, saw blood on a dog at the r esidence and pointed this out to [Mr.] Carter. [Mr.] Carter had a [prior] conviction for receiving stolen property, which [Attorney Fuchel] did not use to cross
- examine [him]. [Attorney Fuchel] indicated that he would normally impeach this type of witnes s, but did not do so in this case because he believed that [Mr.] Carter’s testimony was favorable to the defense in that it tended to implicate [Mr. Campbell]. The fifth Commonwealth witness [to testify at trial] was Brian Silberger. At trial, [Mr.] Silberger testified that

### J - S52021 - 15

- 19 - [Appellant] purchased several thousand dollars of crack cocaine from him (Silberger) at or around the time of the murder. [Mr.] Silberger f urther testified that when he (Silberger) questioned [Appellant] concerning the whereabouts of the [V]ictim, [Appellant] told him [] that the [V]ictim was in Maryland visiting her brother. [Mr.] Silberger had a conviction for burglary and a second convict ion for theft by unlawful taking. Both of these crimes were of a crimen falsi nature and [Attorney Fuchel] could not recall why he did not use them for cross
- examination purposes. The sixth Commonwealth witness [to testify] was Patrick Brown. [Mr.] Brow n was the second witness to testify regarding [Appellant’s] drug purchases or attempts to purchase drugs at or around the time of the homicide. [Mr.] Brown conceded that he was informed by the Commonwealth that he would not be charged for providing drugs to [Appellant]. [During trial, Attorney Fuchel] questioned [Mr.] Brown regarding the fact that he would not be charged, going to [Mr.] Brown’s bias or motive to testify, but neglected to question him about two pending cases and the potential for favorable treatment or leniency in those cases based on this testimony. [Attorney Fuchel] confirmed that it would make sense to question the witness on these issues, but added that he was not sure he knew about these charges. [Attorney Fuchel] conceded that the u se of such impeachment material could increase the chance of [an] acquittal. The second issue raised by [Appellant] in his PCRA petition [concerned] testimony that revealed [Appellant’s] incarceration at the time of trial. [Attorney Fuchel] confirmed tha t a defense lawyer usually attempts to preclude reference to the client being in jail. [Attorney Fuchel] noted, however, that it was extremely difficult in this case because of others who testified regarding admissions made by [Appellant] and who were in jail with him. [Attorney Fuchel] stated that he did discuss this issue with [Appellant] and confirmed that the reference to being in jail was an important issue. [Attorney Fuchel] was pressed by [Appellant’s PCRA] counsel, and indicated that he [believe d] he discussed this

### J - S52021 - 15

- 20 - issue in detail with [Appellant], but was not sure. It was at this point that [Attorney Fuchel] added that he had problems communicating with [Appellant] during trial and that most of the problems for this lack of communication [were Appellant’s fault]. According to [Attorney Fuchel], he gave discovery to [Appellant] twice. He said he mailed the discovery the first time, and [Appellant] said he did not receive it. This, according to [Attorney Fuchel], prompted him to go to the jail personally and deliver the discovery in the presence of the Assistant Warden. [Attorney Fuchel] said there were two occasions at the jail when he had problems with [Appellant]. [Attorney Fuchel] testified that, at one of these two instances, [Appellant] became very physical and threw the public defender’s paralegal, Dionna Steele, to the ground and went after [Attorney Fuchel]. [Attorney Fuchel] stated that [Appellant] became verbally abusive on a second occasion. He indicated that [Appellant] caused th ese disruptions. As to the issue of [Appellant] being in jail, [Attorney Fuchel] added that it was trial strategy for this information to come into evidence because [Attorney Fuchel] thought it would be helpful for the jury to know that the individuals wh o were testifying were also in jail. The Commonwealth brought out the fact that they objected when [Attorney Fuchel] went down this road, and [Attorney Fuchel] asked for a sidebar with the court at trial and confirmed that he wanted this information befor e the jury. The Commonwealth stipulated that the information came before the jury at the request of [Appellant] with no objection or curative instruction requested. [Attorney Fuchel] was also questioned regarding the third issue raised by [Appellant in t he PCRA petition], namely whether Zachery Valentine was acting as an agent of the government when he was debriefed by the Commonwealth and then placed back in the same cell with [Appellant]. [Appellant’s PCRA] counsel assert[ed] that this [gave] rise to t he basis for a motion to suppress the statements [Appellant] made to [Mr.] Valentine on the basis that [Mr.] Valentine may have been acting as an agent for the

### J - S52021 - 15

- 21 - Commonwealth in securing admissions without [ Miranda ] warnings. [Attorney Fuchel] said he did n ot know that [Mr.] Valentine was questioned and placed back in the same cell and never considered this issue or argument.

. . . 2. [Appellant] [Appellant] also testified at the PCRA hearing. . . . [Appellant] testified that [Attorney Fuchel], with the assistance of another Assistant Public Defender, Beth Manifesto, handled his preliminary hearing on August 1, 2009. [Appellant] testified that he never met with [Attorney Fuchel] prior to the preliminary hearing and that [Attorney Fuchel] never came to t he jail to see him and never spoke with him in the lock
- up prior to the preliminary hearing. The first time that [Appellant] actually met with, and saw [Attorney Fuchel] was in the courtroom when the preliminary hearing occurred. The next step in the p rocess was the arraignment in October [] 2009. [Appellant] was incarcerated between the time of the preliminary hearing and the arraignment, and testified that he had no contact with [Attorney Fuchel] between the time of the preliminary hearing and the ar raignment. [Appellant] stated that a private investigator for the public defender’s office did come to the jail in early 2010 to gather information and that [Attorney Fuchel] came to the jail later in January [] 2010 and several times between January [] 2010 and the time of trial in July [] 2010. [Appellant] confirmed that paralegal Dionna Steele came to the jail several times to meet with him, and on one occasion [Attorney Fuchel] was also present. As to the incident in which [Attorney Fuchel] claimed that [Appellant] became verbally abusive and physical, [Appellant] testified that [Attorney Fuchel] actually got in his face and that he ([Appellant]) did not get physical with [Attorney Fuchel]. [Appellant] stated that the incident got very loud and that a jail guard came into the room because of the noise.

### J - S52021 - 15

- 22 - According to [Appellant], Dionna Steele advised the guard that [Appellant] did nothing wrong. [Appellant] went on to state that, after his conviction in this case, he had to file his own appeal becau se [Attorney Fuchel] neglected to timely file the appeal. No post
sentence motion was filed. [Attorney Fuchel] requested several extensions to file a brief for the appeal, and the appeal was eventually remanded to the trial court by the Superior Court be cause of this. [Appellant’s PCRA counsel was] appointed and handled [Appellant’s direct] appeal. [Appellant] testified that[,] throughout the trial[] and [the] early appeal proceedings, [Appellant’s] mother was providing letters to [Attorney Fuchel], [to ] which [Attorney Fuchel] failed to respond[]. [Appellant] filed his own PCRA petition in September [] 2013 and [PCRA counsel] filed [an amended PCRA petition] in April[] 2014. [Appellant] did address specific comments and allegations raised by [Attorney Fuchel]. As to the testimony of Zachery Valentine, [Appellant] advised that [Attorney Fuchel] told him that [Mr.] Valentine was going to testify that [Appellant] confessed to [Mr.] Valentine and that this testimony may hurt at trial. [Appellant] testifie d that he never said he would perjure himself. According to [Appellant], he [] requested that [Attorney Fuchel] cross
examine [Mr.] Valentine with impeachment material, and [Attorney Fuchel] responded that he did not want to complicate the case. [Appella nt] was adamant about the fact that he pressed [Attorney Fuchel] to impeach [Mr.] Valentine. As to Laura Rankin, [Appellant] claim[ed] that he actually brought some of the crimen falsi convictions to [Attorney Fuchel’s] attention. [Appellant] testified t hat [Attorney Fuchel] never advised [Appellant] that he [would not] use the information against [Ms.] Rankin because she was favorable. Instead, [Appellant] testified that [Attorney Fuchel] did not even know about [Ms.] Rankin’s prior convictions until [A ppellant] brought them to his attention. With regard to all of the Commonwealth witnesses who had prior convictions, [Appellant] testified that he was not

### J - S52021 - 15

- 23 - aware that a corrupt and polluted source charge was in order and that [Attorney Fuchel] never reques ted one. It was only after present [] counsel brought this to [Appellant’s] attention that he was aware of this. As to the issue of [Appellant’s] incarceration being brought up at trial, [Appellant] stated that [Attorney Fuchel] told him . . . that Rober t Campbell had already testified to it and therefore it would come in. According to [Appellant], [Attorney Fuchel] never discussed this issue with him in advance or whether it was part of the trial strategy. [Appellant] claimed that he knew it was not ri ght for this information to come in because the sheriff went to great lengths to keep the jury from seeing [Appellant] being escorted to the courtroom by deputy sheriffs in handcuffs and shackles during breaks in the trial. [Appellant] testified that when it was time for the defense case to begin, [Attorney Fuchel] called multiple witnesses in a brief period and then turned to [Appellant] and said “you’re next, but I suggest you not testify.” [Appellant] contends that this [was] the only time [Attorney Fu chel] discussed with him whether or not to testify. With regard to the third issue, namely, Zachery Valentine potentially being an agent of the government, [Appellant] testified [that Attorney Fuchel] never discussed this issue with him. It came to light that [Mr.] Valentine had testified for the Commonwealth in other cases and that neither [Appellant] nor [Attorney Fuchel] knew this. [Appellant] testified that he wrote a letter to the trial judge [] regarding [his] failure to receive discovery. [Appell ant] claims that [Attorney Fuchel] came to the jail angry after receiving notice that [Appellant] wrote a letter to the judge. [Appellant] claims that [Attorney Fuchel] came into the cell, crumbled the letter, told [Appellant] never to write a letter to t he judge again, told [Appellant] that he ([Attorney Fuchel]) was going to trial with what information he had, and told [Appellant] that he ([Appellant]) was going to burn. After this discourse, [Attorney Fuchel] left the cell. . .

.

. . .

### J - S52021 - 15

- 24 - 3. [Detective] Robert Chamberlain [Appellant] also called Beaver County Detective Robert Chamberlain as a witness at the PCRA hearing. [Detective] Chamberlain was a co
- affiant on the criminal charges filed against [Appellant]. The Detectives’ Bureau is part of the Be aver County District Attorney’s Office. Detective Chamberlain was questioned about the involvement of Zachery Valentine in this case and his use as a witness by the Commonwealth. [Detective] Chamberlain testified that he did not know Zachery Valentine pr ior to [Appellant’s] case. [Detective] Chamberlain testified that he met with [Mr.] Valentine twice during [Appellant’s] case. According to [Detective] Chamberlain, [Mr.] Valentine first came to the attention of the Commonwealth when [Mr.] Valentine’s wi fe called the District Attorney’s Office and advised that a representative of the District Attorney should speak to [Mr.] Valentine regarding [Appellant’s] case. This caused the District Attorney’s Office to request transport of [Mr.] Valentine from the B eaver County Jail to the Beaver County Courthouse for questioning on May 18, 2009, prior to the trial in this case. [Detective] Chamberlain advised that he secured all of [Mr.] Valentine’s knowledge and information in the interview of May 18, 2009 and had no intention of speaking with [Mr. Valentine] again short of requesting his testimony at the trial. [Detective] Chamberlain did indicate that there eventually arose the need for a second meeting for the purpose of having [Mr.] Valentine draw a diagram of the crime scene. [Detective] Chamberlain indicated that he did not know that [Mr.] Valentine had served as a witness for the Commonwealth in prior cases at the time he interviewed [Mr.] Valentine in 2009. [Detective] Chamberlain learned this later throu gh discussion with another Beaver County Detective, Kim Clements. According to [Detective] Chamberlain, [Mr.] Valentine expressed fear of being in the same cell with [Appellant], and [Detective] Chamberlain testified that he never told [Mr.] Valentine to keep his eyes and ears open about the case or to solicit any further information from [Appellant] after the initial interview on May 18, 2009.

### J - S52021 - 15

- 25 - On cross - examination, [Detective] Chamberlain testified that he was able to corroborate [Mr.] Valentine’s inform ation given during the interview. In fact, [Detective] Chamberlain stated that he left the interview room on several occasions during the interview to check [Mr.] Valentine’s statement and was able to confirm what he was saying based upon review of phone records and photos of the crime scene. [Detective] Chamberlain was the final witness called by [Appellant]. 4. [Detective] Kim Clements The [Commonwealth] commenced its case on Friday, August 8, 2014. [The Commonwealth] first called Detective Kim Cleme nts. [Detective] Clements testified regarding Zachery Valentine. She [testified] that she knew [Mr.] Valentine as a result of his prior testimony for the Commonwealth in another homicide case. She did participate in [Mr.] Valentine[’s] interview on May 18, 2009. [Detective] Clements testified that she played no part in arranging for [Mr.] Valentine to be interviewed or in his involvement in this case. She confirmed that it was [Mr.] Valentine’s wife who brought him to the attention of the prosecution. [Detective] Clements also confirmed that neither she nor anyone else from the prosecution gave [Mr.] Valentine any instructions to pursue further information from [Appellant] or to act as an agent for the Commonwealth. On cross - examination, [Detective] C lements [testified] that . . . she never instructed [Mr. Valentine] . . . to come back with [] additional information after the first interview. . . . [Detective] Clements confirmed that there was a second interview of [Mr.] Valentine and also stated that she was involved in his preparation for testimony at trial. 5. [Chief] Eugene St. Clair The next Commonwealth witness was Chief Eugene St. Clair of the Freedom Police Department. [Chief] St. Clair is now the chief, but was a sergeant at the time of [Mr .] Valentine’s interview. [Chief] St. Clair was the co
- affiant on the criminal charges with Detective Chamberlain. [Chief] St. Clair indicated that he could not recall all of the details

### J - S52021 - 15

- 26 - of the interview without referring to his report and was permitted to do so. [Chief] St. Clair did recall that [Mr.] Valentine gave specific information regarding [Appellant’s] statement that coincided with evidence found at the crime scene. [Chief] St. Clair also confirmed that he gave no instructions to [Mr.] Valentin e to solicit any additional information from [Appellant]. The one thing that [Chief] St. Clair testified to that was inconsistent with [Detectives] Chamberlain and Clements was that [Chief] St. Clair’s report rais[ed] the inference that there were a numbe r of interviews with [Mr.] Valentine. There are no other specifics on dates of the interviews. Also, there was additional information in [Chief] St. Clair’s report that was not in [Detective] Chamberlain[’s] report, but no major inconsistencies. [Chief] St. Clair did not know [Mr.] Valentine prior to the interview in question. [Chief] St. Clair indicated that he only interviewed [Mr.] Valentine in the presence of Beaver County detectives, but did recall that he was involved in interviews on more than on e occasion. 6. Dionna Steele The final witness called by the Commonwealth was Dionna Steele, a paralegal in the Beaver County Public Defender’s Office. . . . Reference to Attorney Fuchel’s testimony above reflects that [Attorney Fuchel] testified to an incident at the Beaver County Jail in which [he] claimed that [Appellant] became hostile in an attorney interview room with Dionna Steele present. [Attorney Fuchel] testified that [Appellant] pushed Ms. Steele to the ground and came after [Attorney Fuchel ]. Ms. Steele gave quite a different version of that event. She recalled that she took an envelope to the jail from Attorney Fuchel to deliver to [Appellant]. She indicated that she had met with [Appellant] on a number of occasions at the jail and never had a problem with him. On the particular occasion when she took the envelope to the jail for Attorney Fuchel, she was in the attorney meeting room with [Appellant] when [Attorney Fuchel] entered the room. She testified that [Attorney Fuchel] began yell ing at [Appellant] and [Appellant] began to yell back. She became frightened and stepped back. She actually pushed the emergency button in the room because of the situation. She stated that [Attorney Fuchel] began to back up and actually backed into her . [Appellant] thought she might fall

### J - S52021 - 15

- 27 - and grabbed her arm to prevent her from falling. Other than this, [Ms.] Steele testified that [Appellant] never touched her. A jail guard came into the room, and [Ms.] Steele told the guard that [Appellant] did not d o anything wrong. On both direct and cross
- examination, [Ms.] Steele testified that it was Attorney Fuchel who got into [Appellant’s] face. She specifically testified that the situation was escalated by Attorney Fuchel pounding on the table. She was sta rtled by Attorney Fuchel’s actions and specifically recalled that he walked toward [Appellant] and got into his [] face. She said that [Attorney Fuchel] was within inches of [Appellant’s] face. She stated that [Attorney Fuchel] was very angry and was cle arly the aggressor in this situation. According to [Ms.] Steele’s testimony, the relationship between the two was hostile from that point forward. [Appellant’s] counsel pressed [Ms.] Steele on cross
examination and was successful in getting [Ms.] Steele to say that [Appellant] never gave her a problem throughout the time that she met with him prior to trial. In fact, she stated that [Appellant] was always respectful. She stated that [Appellant] was very frustrated in her discussions with him about disco very and the fact that he ([Appellant]) was not receiving anything from [Attorney Fuchel]. [Ms.] Steele stated that she told the jail guard that [Appellant] did nothing wrong in the attorney meeting room because she believed that and did not want to see [ Appellant] receive sanctions at the jail. . . . PCRA Court Opinion, 11/19/14, at 1
- 34 (some internal capitalization and citations omitted). The PCRA court denied Appellant post
- conviction collateral relief in an order entered on November 19, 2014. Appellant field a timely notice of appeal and now raises the following claims to this Court:

1. Did the unjustified failure to impeach central prosecution witnesses in this case with relevant aspects of their criminal records, pending charges[,] and curre nt probationary status

### J - S52021 - 15

- 28 - establish all three of the prongs of the test for ineffective assistance of counsel under Pennsylvania law? 2. Was trial counsel ineffective for eliciting a statement from a Commonwealth witness about the prior incarceration of [App ellant], which, once that fact was brought out, allowed the jury to carry with it the unforgettable picture of [Appellant] sitting in jail, convicted of crimes and of such a character that he was more likely to commit the crime for which they were now task ed with judging [Appellant]? 3. Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to present a motion to suppress a confession surreptitiously obtained by a jailhouse informant because the manner in which the confession was obtained violated [Appellant’s] Sixth A mendment rights where the informant was acting pursuant to an implied understanding with the district attorney and where the informant was returned to the same cell with [Appellant] even after the informant told detectives that he was afraid to return to t he same cell? Appellant’s Brief at 4 (some internal capitalization omitted). We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the certified record, and the well
- written and through opinion from the able PCRA court judge, the Honorable James J. Ross. We conclude that the claims raised in Appellant’s brief fail and that Judge Ross’ opinion, filed on November 19, 2014, meticulously and accurately explains why Appellant’s claims fail. Therefore, we adopt the PCRA court’s opinion as our own. In a ny future filings with this or any other court addressing this ruling, the filing party shall attach a copy of the PCRA court’s opinion. Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

### J - S52021 - 15

- 29 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 11/16 /2015the Jury w as s e l ect ed, the c a se proc e eded to tri al , and th e ju ry convict e d defend ant o f first 

### , . S e nio r Judg e of thi s C ourt , with jury s e l ection taki n g plac e on M o nd ay, July 26 , 2010
. A fte r

T h e ca s e wa s schedu l ed for a jury trial befor e th e Honorab l e John D o h anlch , no w homlclde
. B orough P olice and the Be aver County D e t e ctiv e s ' Bu r eau, th e d e fend ant w a s ch arg e d wi th B o rou g h , Be av e r County , Pe n n s y l vani a. An autop s y det e rmined th at Gros s k o p f di e d du e to

, nul ttpl e stab wound s to th e head and neck are a s . After· an investigation by the F ce edon Eli z abeth Grosskopf, w a s fo 1.uh .i dead in her res iden ce at 1475 Fifth Avenu e Freedom th e lat e ev e ning hours of May 1 ?. o r early morni ng hour s o f May 1 3 , ~009. T ie vi e 11 r. , h.: 11 an incident that o ccurr e d In Fr e edom Borough, B eave r County , P e nnsy l v ania, i n eith e r · as si stan c e of the Beaver County District Attorney Det e ctives Bur e au. T h e ch ar ges stei n ch arg e of homi cide b y the Freedom Borough Pol i c e Dep artment in c onjunction with the On J un e 17, 2 009, th e defendant, Benjamin 

### J. D e nnerlein , wa s char g ed wi th a gen e r al 

### IN TRO DUCT IO N M.EMQRAN

D U M O PlN.ID.N November 

# \<3, , 2014 ROSS , 

### J
. BENJAMIN 

### J

. DENNERLEI N No. 

### 1 5 92 of2009 v . COMMONWEALT H OF PE N NSYLVA N lA

IN THE CO U RT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BEA VER COUN TY

PE N NSYLVAN I A CRIMINAL DIVISION Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM2

appeal pursuant to Pa
. R.App.P. §192S(b), which the defendant did. Judge Dohanlch requiring the defendant to file and serve a concise statement of errors complained of on After the defendant filed his notice of appeal, fudge Dohanlch issued an Order A. Facts and Evidence Adduced and Presented at Trial 

### In 

### July and Au~st, 2010 

## FACTS re a sons stated below, defendant's petitions are denied. exhibits and has reviewed the court file as well as the transcripts of the trial. For the receiving the testimony of various witnesses on those dates. The Court also received The Court conducted a hearing on the petition on August 4, 6 and 8 of 2014, opposition to the petition, and defense counsel filed a brief In support. motions for extension of time. The Commonwealth tiled a response and memorandum in Collateral Relief with this Court on April 7, 2014, which was timely based upon granted . Mitchell Shahen was appointed by the Court to represent the defendant in the post-
• conviction proceedings. Attorney Shahen filed an Amended Petition for Post-Conviction 

### - - - - - -- - - - ---- - ·- -· · The defendant filed a timely 

### pro se petition for po

_ {>t~convjction relief, and Attorney Court, which was denied by Order of the Supr e me Court dated October 22, 2012
. 2012. A timely petition for allowance of appeal was presented to the Pennsylvania Supreme the conviction was affirmed, by Opinion and Order of the Superior Court dated April 2, Superior Court, by the defendant himself, on October 27 , 2010
. The appeal was denied, and No post-sentence motions were filed, but a timely notice of appeal was filed with the defendant to life impri s onment without parole. degree murder on August 3, 2010. On September 29, 2010, Judge Dohanich sentenced the Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM3

a per s on al ch ecki ng/c r ed it/d e b i t ac co unt with th e Northern Lig hts br anch of ESB Bank Erie
. Th e y dis c u ss ed the u ses t o which s h e could put th e funds. M s . Gro ss k o pf maintained $ 3 1,12 8 .14 , repre s entin g h er s h are of th e p roc e eds from th e sa1 e of her p aren ts ' cotta ge In telephon e d to inform him th at on M a y 7, 2009, s h e h a d received and d epo si te d the sum of Mr
. C ampbell' s last contact with the victim o c c urred on May 8, 2009 , when s h e culmin ated in th e ir m arria g e in Oct o ber, 2008. Campb e ll and M s . Babich comm e nc e d their relat1onship in De c ember, 2007, which to c ommenc e a live -I n rel ationship with hi s current wife , Kar en Otrhalik Babich. Mr
. together fo r approximately ten ye ar s until May, 2008, when M r . Campbell left the r es id e n c e ; ten ants with the ri g ht of survivorship. The victim and Mr. Campbell pr e viously lived • tran s ferred the title by dee d d ated F ebruary 28, 2008, to her se lf and Mr. Campb e ll, as j o int nam e b e cause of Mr
. Campbell' s uns table finan ci al condition. Sub s equently, Ms
. Gros s kopf : 2003 , subject to a mortgage; however , th e property was titl e d s olely in Ms. Grosskopf s · prone to falling on occasion
. Ms. Gros s kopf and Mr
. Campbell purchased the r esidence In . health, suffering from variou s medical conditions whi c h c aused her to be unsteady and ' whom she maintained a friendly relationship. Ms. Grosskopf was a fr ail woman In poor 1 Beaver County, in a residence owned by her and Rob e rt Campbell, a former par amour, with Th e victim, Eliz abeth Grosskopf, age 54, re s ided at 1475 Fifth Avenue, Freedom, [ f o llowi n g page s. . captured and summari z ed the 

### facts establi s hed, and the Court reiter ate s th o se facts In the i : reviewed the tr anscripts of the trial and b e lieves that Jud g e Dohanich ha s accurately i opinton , Judge Dohanich recited the facts e s tablished at the jury trial. The Court has 

### ' authored an opinion regarding the errors complained of on appeal on April 7, 2011. In that Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM4

de f endant h a d be e n s t ealin g from h e r and u s in g he r c r edi t /debit car d t o p urch ase ite m s . h e r de ath, M s . Gro s s k o pf r e p o rt ed t o o ne of h e r co -workers , Nan cy Pran s k ey , th at th e wo rk th at day, whic h wa s unlike h er b e c aus e s h e wa s a re li ab l e emp lo y e e . S h ortly b e fo re h o w e v e r , s h e did n o t app ear for wo rk n or c all to indicate th at s h e w o uld n o t b e prese n t for T he victim wa s sc h edule d t o work o n M ay 1 2 , 20 09 , fr om 11:00 A. M. to 8: 0 0 P
. M
. ; Gro s s k o pf aliv e. work d ay . Mr. Mc M o rri s w as th e la s t p erso n o ther th an the p e rpetrator t o se e M s . the s am e d ay as s h e drove by hi s hom e o n th e way t o her r es i de n ce after c o mp l e tin g he r M art M r . M c Morri s s u bse qu en tly o b s e rve d the victi m b e tw ee n 8: 40 P
. M. an d 8 : 50 P
. M
. on · was o b se rv ed at wo rk b y h er neighbo r , Dwight McMorris , wh il e h e was s hop p in g at Wal · W al

- M art M s . Gro s s kop f la st wo rke d on M ay 1 1, 2 0 0 9 , fr o m 11 : 0 0 A
. M. u n ti l 8 : 0 0 P .M
. and Re cy cl ing as a sal es per son fr om 200 8 throug h M ay 1 3 , 2 009
. . p ayin g rent in th e am o unt of $ 50
. 00 p e r w e e k. T h e de fendan t w as empl oye d at Crow's Run I

· l I 

# I i



# . Prio r to her d eath , th e vi ctim w a s empl oy e d as a ca s h ie r at th e Ce n ter Towns h ip • and co ntinuing until the tim e of her d e ath, the de fen d an t res id e d at th e victi m 's h ome, indi vi du als wer e u s er s of an d s m o ke d cocain e t oge the r on o c ca s i o n. In D e c emb e r, 2 0 08, · Gr o ss kopf fro m time t o ti m e when h e wa s in n ee d of a temp orary r es i d en c e . All thre e m aintain e d a fri e ndly r elationsh i p , and the d e fend ant r eside d wi th Mr
. Campbe ll and M s. · : the instant cas e. Up on r e lease from inc arc e r ati on, Mr. C amp be ll and th e d efe ndan t victim's d eath while b o th w e re i nmat es in th e Be ave r C ounty Jail fo r reaso ns unr e l ate d t o · • 24-hour p e riod
. Mr
. Camp b e ll w as in tr odu c ed t o the d e f e n dant ap p rox i m ately fo u r year s pri o r t o th e which sh e open e d M ay 19, 1997
. Th e account w as limited t o withdraw al s of $ 5 10.00 pe r Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM~ - - 5 . Bank rec o rd s di s cl os ed th at o n May 5 , 2 009, the victim 's b ank account h a d be en o ve rdr awn ; by $741.11 a s a re sult of ei ght trans a ction s . Th e d e fe n dant also di d n o t app ear at his pla ce of employm e n t on M ay 1 2 , 200 9 , and

. termm ate d hi s e mployment due to a di sa gr ee ment with h i s employer , N ic k D'Itri, b y w ay of
: a t e xt me ss a ge on May 13 , 2009, at 12 : 5 2 P.M
. Th e def e ndant h a d be e n a good e mp l oy e e i un ti l app r oximatel y one mo n th pri o r to t e rmin atin g hi s e mployment when h e b e gan not ! r eporti n g for w o rk. Th e prio r w e ek he fail e d to app ear fo r wo rk on fou r co n s ec u ti v e days .

. His emplo y e r s usp e ct e d that drug u se wa s respo n sible fo r th e d e f e nd ant' s d e cl in e in

, performan ce . Th e defendant' s la s t worki ng day w a s May 11, 2009
. Be twee n 10 : 00 A.M
. and 10 :3 0 A.M
. on May 1 2 , 2 00 9, Mr
. Campbell sough t the

· de fe nd ant at hi s pl ac e of e mployment Not locating him at w o rk, M r. C ampb e ll p r oc e e d e d

. to the vi cti m's r esi d e n ce and fo u nd th e d efe nd an t pre s ent M r . C ampb e ll note d that th e

, d e f e n dant ap peared t o b e un de r the Influen c e o f dru gs . Wh e n M r . C ampb e ll i n quire d of th e

. defe n d ant as t o the wh ere abou ts of th e victim , th e d e f e ndan t r e pli ed th at h e h a d take n h er t o wo rk earlie r th at mornin g, b ecau s e he w a s In n eed of h e r v e hicl e t o run erran ds
. Mr
. Camp b e ll , who main tai ne d v ari o u s item s of p e r so n al p r op erty at th e r esi d ence , searc h ed th e hom e t o a s s ur e th at h is b e lon gi ng s we re p re s ent and w as fo llow e d thro u g h th e h o u se

. . by the d e fend ant Whe n lo o ki ng int o th e victim ' s b e droo m, Mr
. C amp b e ll ob served th at the bed h a d b ee n m ade, w hic h w as unu s u al b e c au se th e victim w a s a p o or hou s ekeeper and
n e v er m a de th e b ed
. T h e d efe nd ant w a s dire ctly b e hind M r . Campbell a s h e wa s i n th e doorw ay to th e vi ctim ' s b e droo m . Th e d e fen dant and M r . Campb e ll b ecame in volv e d in a h e ate d ar gu m en t o ver th e def e nd an t n ot w o rki n g t o p ay re nt to th e vi c tim an d h is dru g u se . Mr. C amp b e ll info rm e d the d efe n dant th at h e would return to the r es i d e n ce b e tw e e n 8:30 Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM6

that sh e pro vi d e tr an s po rtati o n to the motel. J e nni fe r Bums and B ryan Sil berg e r retrie ve d h er to join him in s moking c ra c k co c aine
. Ms. Rankin telephoned Jennifer Bums , r e qu e s tin g o f th e Beaver Falls Motel in B e ave r F alls , following which he c o ntacte d Laura Ranki n a s king On M ay 13 , 200 9 , at approximate ly 1 2 : 2 6 A.M. , th e defendant checke d into Room 1 2 final ti m e at approximat e ly 1 2 :00 A.M, return e d to their re siden ce and re tired fo r th e ni g h t occa s ion s and did not find anyon e or th e victim's automobile at the home. Th e y l e ft for the 

### _ Mr. - C ampbell and hi s wife left and returned to th e victim's re s idence on two additi o nal Bad e n polic e would be inter es t e d In Mr
. Campbell's us e of m ari ju ana . During the evening. : He received no respon s es, e xc e pt that th e de fe nd ant s e nt a te x t mes s age advis i n g that th e : the victim by telephon e and through text mes s ag es indicating his d e s i r e to spe ak to th em. • C ampbell attempt e d on 30 o c casions to r e ach the d e fend ant an d on 17 o cc a sion s to c o n ta ct In the are a . T hrougho u t the e vening and into the e arly morn i ng hour s o f M ay 1 3 , 200 9 , Mr. ; 

### ! return e d t o the victim ' s residenc e and found no one pre s en t The victim's veh i cle w a s not purch as ed from the defendant and which were not appropriate for his vehicle. : games, movies and an ele c tric can o pener, to reimburse Mr. Price for tire s th at h e

At between 8:30 P
. M
. and 9 : 00 P
. M. on May 12, 2009, Mr
. Campbell and hi s wife ! Chippewa Township K-Mart between 6 : 51 P
. M
. and 7 : 09 P
. M
. and proceeded to the h o me of

i Gregory ' Wimpy" Price and Wendy McCoy to deliver items to Mr
. Price, including vi d e o ; card, made a balance inquiry at ESB Bank located at 921 Third A v enue in New Brighton
. ; The defendant, utili z ing the victim's credit/debit c ard , purchased various it e ms at th e Lat e r in the same day at 3 : 25 P
. M
. , the defendant, using the victim's credi t/debit 

## I the victim
. · P.M
. and 9 : 00 P.M., when the victim returned from work, to speak with the defendant and Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM7

· Ms. Rankin and her infant child and drove to the mote) to meet the defendant Ronald "Toot" Goodman, the father of a child with Ms. Burn s , and Patrick Brown, a s upp li er of crack cocaine for the defendant, al s o appeared at the motel. Mr. Brown provided the

: cocaine to the defendant The defendan t, when asked the rea s on for being in pos s ession of
; the victim's vehicle, informed Ms
. Rankin that the victim was aw ay on vacati on visiting her niece in Maryland or Virginia
. The defendant told Mr. Sil berg e r th at the victim wa s aw ay in Maryl and t o vi s it he r brother for a week Th e defendan t , in an effort to a s su re Mr
. Brown,

: h is coc aine s upplier , that he had sufficient fund s when r eque s ting Mr
. B r own to provid e an
: advance of drugs , had pre vi ously forwarded a text messa g e to him on May 9 , 2 009 , s howing

· a bal an c e in the victim ' s bank ac c ount of $29 , 712
. 14
. Th e defend ant and the other

· indi viduals smoked cr ack cocaine throughout the early morning hour s of May 13, 2010, until approximately 5:00 A
. M
. Durin g that time, the defendant and M s . Rankin left the motel and proceeded to two convenience s tor es to pu rch as e It e m s and att e mpted to ob tain funds using the victim's credi t /debit card. At one point in time, the def e ndant advised Ms. R ankin th at he was u s ing the victim' s cre di t/d ebit c ard, showed her th e b alanc e in th e
ac c ount and stated to h er , "stick with me and good thin gs will h app e n "
. Mr. Campbell, a ccompanied b y two fri e nd s , Martin Co s tan za and Ju s tin H e rtn e cky, pro c eed e d to the victim 's r es idenc e o n M ay 1 3, 200 9 , b e tw ee n 8 : 30 A.M
. and 9 : 00 A.M

. No
on e w as pre s ent and the vi c tim' s c ar wa s not at the r es id e n c e . The thr ee of th e m gath e re d th e def e nd ant's b e longings, plac e d th e m in g arba g e b a gs and s tored th e bag s in th e gar age of th e res id e n ce . Mr. Campbell o pened th e vi cti m's bedro o m door and fo und th e b e d in th e
same c ondi ti on as th e day b e fore, as if it h a d n o t b ee n di s turbed. T hey th e n left the Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM8 . (

residence and return e d to Mr
. C ampb e ll' s ho u se for th e balance of th e morning
. Mr
.

. C arnpb el l' s i ntention w a s t o e vict th e d efe nd an t After le aving th e mote l and driv i ng h is fri ends hom e, the d e fend ant cl ai m e d to h av e
re turn e d t o the victim ' s residence to lo cate h er, found that s he wa s n o t pre s ent , that he r ; bed did not appear to hav e been sl ept in , and th e n p roc eed e d t o the B e a v e r V all e y M all
. A t ; 1 : 15 P.M
. o n M ay 13, 2009 , the defend ant pre s e nte d a check ma de p ayabl e on th e vi cti m' s
: ac c o u n t to himsel f in th e amount o f $1 , 000
. 00 at the ESB Bank in Be av e r F all s. Th e m e mo porti o n of th e check indic ate d the word s "roof /porch "
. The def e ndan t explai n e d that h e ' h a d pe rfo rmed work for th e victim and th e ch ec k re pre sented payment M s . C e le s te , the

. victim' s ne x t do o r neighbor, In d icated th at n o re ce nt work h a d b ee n done on the · hou se.
: The bank re pr es entativ e re qu este d id e ntific ation from th e d e fend ant , sin ce h e d id not h av e
: an acc ount with th e bank , and he p rovid e d his driver's lic e n se. Th e check w as dra wn on th e N o rth e rn Ligh ts ESB B ank loc ate d in Ba d en . Th e B eave r F alls E SB B ank m an a g e r tel e pho n ed th e Northern Lights br anch and obtain e d a facs i mil e of th e s i gnatu re card of the victim. Th e B e ave r F alls br anch m an a ge r als o pl ace d two te l e phon e c all s to th e victim ' s
re s id en ce an d the te lephon e w a s not an sw e r ed on e i th e r occ a sion. M e r b ei ng un abl e to

v e rify th e d e f

e nd ant' s c orre ct addre s s and te lephone number or the victim 's si gn atu re, th e b ank refused to ca sh th e c h eck and return e d the c h e ck to th e d e f e ndan t

· Trooper R o bert N e gh e rb o rn, a foren si c d oc ument e xaminer with th e Pen n sylvani a S tat e Police Cri me Labo rato ry, re co vere d from the fac e of the sub s equent c h ec k i n the vi c tim ' s chec k

book th e Impr ess ion of the writing dep i cting th e te xt o f the pre vious che c k p ay abl e to th e defendant , Includi n g the au thori zi ng s i gn ature . H e wa s fu rth e r p ro vid e d with h andwritin g sampl es of th e victim and the d e fendan t Althou g h not Issu i ng a Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM'II. - 9 Camp bell , w ho s ub se qu e ntl y arri ved and I nfo rme d Mr
. C art er th at h e was In p ossessi on of th e hou se b y w ay of a window an d w as u nable to locat e the r e m o t e c o ntr o l w hile
c ontinu in g t o speak t o the d efe nd ant o n the te lephone
. M r . C arte r th en tele p h one d M r. r e m o te c o n tro l fo r th e gar a g e door. At th e di re ction of the d e f e nd an t, M r . C arte r en t e re d call , at w h ic h tim e th e de fe nd ant i n s truct ed M r. C arter to e nt e r th e hom e to o b tai n the C art e r w aite d. Wh e n th e def en dant fail e d t o appear , M r . C arte r m a d e a s ec ond te l e phone T h e de fe ndant advis e d Mr
. C arter that he wo u ld n o t arriv e for a period of ti me, and Mr
. informi ng hi m th at h e w as at the r es id e nce desi ri ng to r e tri ev e th e vehicl e from th e gar a ge . $500

. 00 for the p urchas e o f an au tomobil e from th e d e f e nd ant, t e l e ph o n e d th e d efe nd an t At ap p ro xi mate l y 1:00 P
. M
. , K e lly C arte r, who h a d pr e vi ously ma d e paym e n t of c r e dit/debit c ard and wa s refu s ed
. . credi t/debit card
. H e al s o att e mpted t o b u y t e nnis sho e s for Mr
. Pri ce u s ing the vi ctim 's .· m e t Mr
. Pric e while at th e Beav er Vall e y M all and purc h as e d o th e r it e m s wi thth e vi cti m's , c re dit/d ebit c ard and w as r e fu se d
. Th e d e fend ant w as a cc o mp ani e d b y Ms
. Ranki n an d A short ti m e lat e r he att e mpt e d t o r e turn the t e nn is shoe s for a c ash r e fund wi tho ut the at the Shoe Dep artm e nt Store at th e Be aver Valley Mall u s ing the vi ctim ' s c re di t /d e bit card
. A t approximately 2:00 P.M
. on M ay 13, 2009 , the def e ndant purcha s ed t e nn is s hoes che c k. .• de fe ndant wrote the e ntries on th e che c k, o r th at th e defendant wro t e th e si gn atu re on th e • opined that there wer e no s ignificant s imil ariti es to indicat e th at the victim or the : str o ng prob ability that th e signature on the check was not that of th e victim. H e furth e r I c on cl u s ive o pinion, T r ooper Negherborn tes ti fied that in c o mp aring th e wri ting on the

I ch e ck with the s ample s of th e handwriting of th e victim and the d e fendant , ther e wa s a ./ Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AMlO

· the remote control and would not permit the removal of the vehicle until the defendant
; appeared. Mr, Carter placed a third call to the defendant, who indicated he would return

: later. Both Mr
. Campbell and Mr. Carter observed what appeared to be blood on the victim's dog and entered the house to investigate , Mr. Campbell entered the victim's

• bedroom and discovered a pool of blood on the bed where the blanket had been pulled away. He called Mr. Carter into the bedroom to ob s erve the blood
. Mr. Carter then telephoned the defendant, informed him of their findings and inquired whether he knew the whereabouts of the victim, to which the defendant replied that he thought she was at work Mr. Carter told the defendant he should return to the residence immediately. The defendant Indicated that he was at the Beaver Valley Mall and would return home at a later time. He also stated that he had not been at the residence for several days. Mr. Campbell, after contacting the victim's employer and the hospital in an unsuccessful attempt to locate her, placed a call to 9· 1-1 at 2:54 P.M. Freedom Borough Chief of Police John Hill and Officer William Dreyer of the Freedom Borough Police Department responded to the call at approximately 3 : 00 P.M. Andrew Gall of the Beaver County Detective Bureau received a call for assistance from the Freedom police officers at 3:10 P
. M. and responded to the residence with County Detectives Timothy Staub, Kim Clements, Timmie Patrick and Robert Chamberlain
. A search of the residence disclosed the victim's body wrapped in blankets in a stairway on the second floor leading to the attic, which was located between the bedrooms of the victim and the defendant and could be accessed from both bedrooms. The police found no evidence of forced entry into the home. When informed of Ms. Grosskopfs death, Mr. Campbell became extremely distraught As a result of receiving information from Ms. Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM11

Rankin's moth er that Ms. Rankin was with the defendant in her vehicle at the Beaver Valley Mall, a BOLO (be on look out) alert was broadcast for the defendant, the victim's vehicle and the vehicle being operated by Ms. Rankin and owned by her mother. Ms. Rankin received telephone calls from a friend and her mother advising that the names of the defendant and Ms. Rankin were heard on the scanner indicating that the police were attempting to locate the defendant Detective Patrick proceeded to the defendant's place of employment and in speaking to Mr. D'ltri found that the defendant last worked on May 12, 2009, and terminated his employment on May 13, 2009. Mr. D'Itri provided the defendant's cellular telephone number to Detective Patrick, who attempted several calls and text messages to the defendant with no response. At 6:07 P.M., Officer Maxim Strano of the Center Township Police Department, in response to the alert, located the defendant and Ms. Rankin in the automobile being operated by Ms. Rankin as it was backing out of a parking spac e at the Beaver Valley Mall. The defendant stated to M s . Rankin "to go or he was going to run". Officer Strano drew his weapon, ordered both individuals to the ground, approached the defendant and placed him in handcuffs. The defendant stated that he thought about running and should have run when he saw the officer. The defendant also indicated that Officer Strano had the wrong man. The victim's credit/debit card was found in the defendant's wallet The victim's vehicle was also located a short distance away. The defendant and Ms. Rankin were transported to the Center Township Police Department At 6:39 P.M., the defendant waived his Miranda rights and agreed to speak with Detectives Patrick and Clements. The defendant was informed of Ms. Grosskopf's Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM12

m ade and did not app ear to h ave b ee n s lept in
. The defe n d ant the n pr oce e ded to the M ay 13, 2 009. H e advi s ed that he c h ecked out of the Be av er Falls Mote l at appro xi mate ly 11:00 A
. M
. and re turn e d to the r es i d e nce t o lo o k fo r the vi cti m . H e found th at her b e d w as M s . R ankin and her fri e nds. T h e y all remained at the mote l into the early morning hours of co caine fr om Mr
. Pric e and c h ec ked int o th e Be av er F all s Mot e l t o smoke c r a c k coc ain e with dis cl os e d th at th e d e fendant did no t app ear at th e re l e van t time
. He o btain e d cra c k 2009 , and vi de o fo ota ge of th e en tranc e and th e cus tom er s ervice ar ea of W al-Mart to c all Ms
. Gr oss ko pf and rec eiv ed no repl y . T h e vi ctim di d not re po rt for wo rk on M ay 1 2 , an d was told th at sh e w a s not at work all d ay. He also a dvis e d the d e tectiv es that he tri e d pick up M s . Gros s kopf, and wh e n sh e did n o t come out to the v e hicle, h e w e nt into the store coc ai ne b i nge . H e stated that h e r etu rn e d to Wal-M art be tw ee n 8:00 P
. M. and 8 : 3 0 P.M
. to C ampbell , he ad vi sed that he left the r es i dence, r an a f ew mor e err an d s and w e nt on a crack contact wi th M r. Camp bell and a v e rb al argument e nsu e d
. M e r the d isa gr ee ment wi th M r . 10:00 A.M
. , att e nded to se ve r al err ands and returned to th e res i d e nce, when he mad e • state d th at on M ay 12 , 200 9, he dro ve the victim to wo rk at Wal-M art at appro xJ mate l y . P
. M. near the end ofthe hoc ke y game, wh e n she w a s at h er own re si d e nc e . T he d e f e nd an t ; 11th an d th at th e two of the m h a d exc h an g ed text me s s ag e s b e tween 9:2 3 P
. M
. and 10 : 07 i i 

# i 

# I to the state m en t mad e by M s . Cantella th at she was n ot at th e victim 's re sid en c e on M ay i I 

## I : d ep arted after th e hockey g am e t o r eturn to her r esid e n c e. Thi s in formation w as contr ary c am e ho m e fro m wo rk duri ng the hockey game. Acco rd ing to the d efendant, M s . C ant e ll a , P e nguin s

jWashington C api tal s ho c ke y gam e. The defen dant further a dvis e d th at the vic ti m ; and his girlfriend, Coll e en Cantell a , wer e at th e victim 's re si denc e vi e wing the P i ttsbu rg h ; d eath an d s howed n o emoti o n . H e indic at e d th at i n th e ev enin g hou rs o f M ay 11, 2009, h e Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM1 3

May9,2009: o rder wa s o utlin e d b y D e t ecti ve C hamb e rlain a s follo w s: and in th e tra s h b i n at th e B eaver Fall s M o tel. A s ummary of th e se r ec or ds i n c hr o n o l o gic al ( A TM) withdraw als from th e vi cti m' s a cc o unt In the veh i cl es o f the vi ctim and M s. R anki n May 14, 2009, and l ocate d v ario u s rec e ipts for p u rc ha se s and aut o m atic t e ller m a chin e Prosecutors a c quired the victi m 's b ank re co rd s fo r the p erio d fro m May 1, 200 9 , throu g h May 3 1, 200 9 , th e te lephon e rec o rds of the def e nd ant from May 8, 2009 , throu g h th e victi m ' s v e hicl e, w h ich wa s in the po s s e ss i on of th e d e fendant. Id e n ti fication card, driver's li c ens e , checkbo o k and c ellular t e lephon e s we re all lo cat e d In Is convinc e on e p er so n " that he did not c o mmit th e offense
. The vi ctim' s purs e .W al -M art if they w er e go ing to arr es t h i m fo r murd er t o do s o. He furth e r s tate d th at " all I have t o d o interview, which lasted appr ox i mate ly on e h o ur , the d efendant state d t o the d e t ective s th at h ave penni ss i o n fr om th e victi m to u se th e cr edit/d ebit c ard
. N e ar th e co n clu s i o n o f the informati o n, the def

e nd ant in f

ormed th e dete ctiv e s that he h a d taken th e c r edi t/debit card

· , o ut of the vi c tim's purse and p la ce d the p urs e in the automobile. Th e d efe nd ant clai me d to . ki t ch e n o f th e home and sub s equ e ntly found i t i n th e vi cti m's v e hicl e . Up on rec e ivin g this the kitch e n of th e re s idence. Th e dete ctives wer e un able to locate th e vi ctim ' s purs e l n the defendan t relat ed th at h e obtain e d the c re dit/d e bit card fro m th e vi cti m ' s p ur s e located in includin g the victim' s p ersonal i dentifi cation number (P.I.N
. ) to acces s th e ac co unt The 

### - 1 I ! I I d e fe n dan t a d vis e d that he had the info rm ati on r eg arding the vi ctim ' s c re dit/debit c ard , at two s e par ate r e t.ail loc ati o n s u s in g th e vi cti m's c re dit/d ebit card and w a s re j ected. The : paym e nt for coc ain e p reviously supplied by Mr. Pric e . The d efe ndant atte mp ted purc has e s B e aver Valley M all where he met Mr
. Price an d offered t o purch as e t e nnis s ho e s fo r h i m a s Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM14

1. 12:29 AM. - Telephone call from defendant to ESB Bank automated telephone number 2. 12:48

AM. - Telephone call from defendant to Gregory Price 3. 12:55 A.M. - Purchase using the victim's credit/debit card at East Rochester GetGo for 99¢. 4. 12:55 A.M. • $10.00 gasoline purchase using victim's debit card at East Rochester GetGo May 12, 2009: • 1. 9:23 P.M. through 10:07 P.M. - Several text messages between defendant and Colleen Cantella, the defendant's girlfriend regarding the hockey game
· 2. 9:54 P.M. - Telephone call from defendant to Gregory Price 3, 10:46 P.M. - Text message from defendant to Gregory Price stating "If I come with $200.00, can you do anything?" 4. 11:05 P.M. - Text message from defendant to Gregory Price stating "If I come with $200.00, can you do anything?" 5. 11: 19 P.M. - Text message from defendant to Patrick Brown stating "Can I come to you now?" 6, 11:33 P.M. - Text message from defendant to Patrick Brown stating "Can I come to you now?" May 11, 2009: 1. 2:16:03 A.M. - $100.00 ATM withdrawal from ESB Bank, New Brighton 2. 2:16:22 AM. - $200.00 ATM withdrawal from ESB Bank, New Brighton 3. 2:17 AM. -Telephone 

### call from defendant to Gregory Price 4. 7:31:13 AM. - $100.00 ATM rejected withdrawal, ESB Bank, New Brighton 5. 7:31:39 A.M. - ATM balance inquiry, ESB Bank, New Brighton, showing balance of $29,312.14 6. 7:31:57 AM. - $20.00 ATM rejected withdrawal, ESB Bank, New Brighton 7. 7:35:34 AM. - $102.50 ATM/Mac machine rejected withdrawal, 

### Beaver Falls 8. 7:44:04 AM. - ATM rejected balance inquiry, ESB Bank, New Brighton 9. 7:44:16 A.M. - ATM rejected balance inquiry, ESB Bank, New Brighton 10. 7:44:29 A.M. - $100.00 ATM rejected withdrawal, ESB Bank, New Brighton 11. 7:44:39 AM. - $20.00 ATM rejected withdr a wal, ESB Bank, New Brighton 12. 7:46:34 AM. - $100.00 ATM rejected withdrawal, ESB Bank, New Brighton· (defendant is displayed on video at the ATM machine) 13. 7:54:02 AM. - $102.00 ATM rejected withdrawal, BP, East Rochester ! May 10, 2009: 1. 11:43 P.M. - Text message from defendant to Patrick Brown of a photograph of a $100.00 withdrawal from the victim's account, and indicating a balance of $29,712.14 Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM1 5

M ay 13 , 2009 : 1. 12 : 01 A M
. - $30 3 .00 ATM withdr a w al, B e av e r Fall s · 2. 1 2 : 0 2 AM
. - $ 203 .0 0 ATM withdrawal, Beav e r F all s 3. 1 2 :0 2 A.M
. - Si x un an s w e re d te l e phon e calls fro m Rob ert Campb e ll t o d e f e n dan t 4
. 1 2: 1 2 AM
. - T e l e ph o n e c all fr o m defe nd an t t o L au r a R ankin 5. 3 : 06 : 1 7 A.M
. - $ 2 2. 59 tr an s ac tio n at S h eetz , Be aver F all s 6
. 4 : 11 A.M
. - $10 1
. 5 0 Mac ma ch i n e tr ansactio n, Beave r Fall s 7
. 4 :14 A.M. • $ 5.6 9 M a c mac hin e tran sactio n , Beave r F all s (d e fend ant di sp l ay e d o n vi deo) 8. 5: 03 A M
. - Text m ess a g e fro m d e f e nd ant to P atri c k Br o wn statin g " N eed 1 5 0 " (m eanin g d e fe n dan t nee d e d $1 5 0.00 w o rth of cr ack cocain e ) 9. 6 : 10 AM
. - $6

. 33 tran sa cti o n at East R o c h es t e r G e t Go 10. 6:18 AM
. - Te le p hon e call fro m d efe nd ant t o Patri c k Br own 1 1
. 11 : 4 2 A M
. - Text mes sa g e fr o m Patrick D rown t o defe n dan t stati n g "S ti ll n ee d it ?" 1 2
. 1 : 0 6 P. M
. - Te l ep hon e call fro m K e lly Cart e r t o defe ndant 13
. 1 : 30 P
. M
. - D efe nd ant att emp ts t o cas h victi m' s c h eck at E SB Bank, D eav er Fall s 14
. 1 :36 P .M
. - T e l e ph one call from K e ll y Carte r t o d e f e nd an t 1 5. 1 : 5 0 P
. M
. - $ 2 00
. 0 0 A T M r e j ected wi th dr awal, E S B B ank, N e w Bri g h ton 1 8
. 1 6. 11. 

## : 9
. ' 10. 1 : 04 :11 A M
. - $ 2 00
. 0 0 A TM w i thdraw al, E SB Bank, N ew Bri g h t o n 1: 04 :2 8 A M. - $200

. 00 ATM withdra w al , E SB Ban k , N ew Bri ght o n 1 : 07 AM
. - Tel e phon e call fr o m de fe nd ant t o Gr ego ry Price

. 3:1 5 AM
. - Te x t me ss ag e from Patri ck Brown to defendant s tating "Phone wa s de ad, what' s up " 8 :08 A M. - T e l ep h o ne call from d efe nd ant to Gre go ry Price 12 :0 1 : 36 P .M. - $10 3 .00 ATM wi th dra w al, Huntington Bank, C ranb erry (d e fendan t di spl ay ed alon e i n th e victi m' s v e hicl e on vid eo ) 12:0 2 P.M
. - $10 3 .00 ATM rej e cted withdraw al, Huntington B ank, C r anb e rry (d efe ndant dis p l ayed alon e i n the vi cti m' s v e hicl e on vi d e o) 3:2 4 P.M
. · $10 3. 00 ATM re ject e d wi thdr a wal , Huntington B ank, New Brighton (defendant di s pl aye d o n vide o ) 3: 25 P
. M
. - A T M balance i n quiry, Huntin gt on Bank , New Brighton, s ho win g a b alan c e of$28 ,68 9 .42 (d e fend ant d is pl ayed o n vid eo) 6 :33 P
. M. • $75

. 00 AT M/M a c machine withdr a w al, Be av e r F alls 6 :51 P.M. - P urc ha se by defendant u s in g vi cti m 's cr edi t /d eb it card at Ch ipp e wa K · M art in th e am o unt o f$8 3. 59 (de fe ndant di s play e d on vi d e o ) 7: 06 P.M. - Pur c ha se by d e f e ndant using vi ctim' s c r e di t /d eb it c ar d at Chippew a KM art in th e am o unt of

$79 .4 8 (defendant disp lay e d on vide o ) 7:09 P.M. - Purchas e by de fendant usin g vi cti m' s credit/d ebit car d at C hippew a K Mart in th e am ou nt o f $10 5 .77 (d efe nd ant d is pl ay e d o n vid eo ) 7:24 P .M. - Tex t m essa g e fr om Patri c k Dr o wn to d efe n d ant s tati ng "Ph o n e wa s d ea d , wh at's u p " 11 : 47 P .M. • $303

. 00 ATM r e j e ct ed withdraw al, B e av e r F all s (defe nd ant di s pl ayed on vi deo with victi m 's v e h icle i n b ac k gro und) 

### 5. 6
. -7. 

### 8 .

. 1 9. 17
. . 14. 1 5. , 1 2. 

## i 13
. Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM16

supervi s or in th e DNA section, conducted DNA te s ting on the sw abs of the defendant's blue submi s sion to the DNA sec tion o f the crime labor atory . Micha e l Biondi, a forensi c scienti s t s wabs of th e blood on the defendant's je an s , tennis shoes and the ste ak knife for of blood. Ms. Badger prepared samples of dried blood of the victim and the d e fendant and kitchen sink of th e victim's residence submitted to the crime laboratory disclo s ed e vidence te s ting for blood
. In addition , examination of the handle of a steak knife found in the of the d e fendant's left athletic shoe, but the sample was insufficient for a confirmatory j e ans consisted of blood
. She further detected the presence of blood on the eyelet of the toe • determined that two stains on the outs i de s e am of the lower leg of the defendant's blu e Crime Laboratory for an alysis. J e nnifer Badger, a foren s ic scientist in the serology section, •· together with the defendant's blue jeans, were delivered to the Pennsylvania State Police r e vealed possible blood stains. Samples of the blood o f th e victim and the defendant, . the victim's credit/debit card
. killed and at the various location s at which he made ATM withdrawals and purchases using · defendant in the area of the victim's re s idence during the hours when she would have been . witnesses and video displays of the defendant at bank ATM and retail locations, placed the

An examination of the defendant' s blue jeans and tennis shoes under a blue light : confirm the approximat e location of the defendant when he was u s ing his cellular ; telephone
. This Information , together with th e known observations of the def e ndant from •· depicting the sites of cellular telephone towers in Beaver County from which he was able to : In addition, Detective Chamberlain obtained documentation from Verizon Wirele s s 16. 1 : 51 P
. M. - Bal ance inqu i ry, ESB Bank , New Bri g hton, s howing balan c e of $27,872

. 06 17. 2:31 P.M. - Purchase by defendant u s ing vic ti m's credit/debit card at the Shoe D e partment, Beaver Valley Mall, i n the amount of $69

. 99
. Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM17 

# i ! for th e c ri me . In a se cond co nver sation with Mr. Sarv e r , th e d e f e nd ant qu eri e d a s to wh y th at h e had killed Ms
. Gro s skopf and int e nded t o attempt to pl a ce bl am e o n Mr. C amp bell purch a se d m ariju an a in the past Mr. Sarver rel ated that the defend ant admitt e d to him B eaver Co u nty J ail. Mr. S arv e r al s o w a s famili ar with Mr. C ampb e ll from whom he had 

### I 

# I Jam e s Sarver met th e defendant on M ay 15, 2009, while both were inm at es in the

. d e ath was homicide. from the left throu g h the right s ide of th e neck. Dr. Smi th estim ated that the bl a de o f the i

# ii knife was approximately on e -half inch in width an d thre e inch e s in length. The manner of was an indication the victim was held d o wn and w a s struck w1th such force as to pen e trate ward off h e r atta c ker. He te s tified th at the c oncentration of th e wounds in the neck area · defen s ive wound s on the victim's h and s and finger s indic ating that the victim attempted to . knife wounds, 34 of which were located in th e left neck re gio n . Dr. Smith furth e r described : death occurred within an 18-hour to 36-hour peri od b e tween 3:00 A.M
. and 9 : 00 P
. M
. on
: May 12, 2009. Dr. Smith opined that the cause of death was the s tab wound s to th e neck ·

· which Incis e d the right c arotid artery and th e right jugular v ein. He noted a total o f 46 · greeni s h di s colo r ation of the body , signifying the first s ign of decompo s ition, the victim's Dr
. J ame s Smith , a foren s ic p athol o gist, determined that due to ob s erving th e appe ared DNA types fr o m two unidentified individuals
. could not be excluded as a contributor for the blood on the knife , b e caus e th e r e also contributor a s to the knife found In the kitch e n sink, while th e DNA profil e of the def e ndant the blood stain from th e defendant's s hoe. T h e DNA profil e of the victim was excluded as a profile s of th e victim and the defendant could not be e x clud e d as potential contributors o f jean s and determined that the blood on the jeans matched the victim's blood. The DNA Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AMI !

. I 

## I



# · I

18 the hou s e and into Ms
. Babich's residen c e, indic ating th at she de s ired to title the home In Mr
. Campbell testified that the vi c tim called him shortly afte r he had moved out of victim and that he had a financial mo tiv e for killing her. C ampbell by att e mpting to demonstrate that h e had been physically abusive toward the The defense presente d evidence in an effort to place culp ability for the crime on Mr. homicide until hi s conver s ation with th e defendant I

. ' ' the police based upon the defendant's description. Mr. Valentine had been unaw are of th e

Mr. Valentin e , who had never been to the residence, drew a di agram of the res i dence for bed and complained that Mr
. Campbell had pulled the blanket aw ay expos i ng the blood. The defendant further described the placement of a tan blanket coverin g the blood on the detailing the l ocation of the bedroom s and the doorways from each bedroom to the attic. residence. The defendant also outlined the layout of the house and provid e d a diagram placed her body in the stairway to the attic between the two bedrooms in th e vi c tim's defendant acknowledged that he had killed the victim, wrapped h er in a blue bl anket and incarcer ation while wo rking at Crow's Run Recycling. Mr
. Val e ntine stated that the in which he indicate d that he had become acquainted with the def e nd ant prior to their • appro x imately two weeks
. On May 18 , 2009, Mr
. Valentine provided a state ment to police I 1 · i to the m ain floor of the hou s e.

Zack Valentine was the defendant's cellmate at the Beav e r County Jail for S arver testified that he h a d previously been a visitor at the victim's residence, limite d only credit/debit card and confirmed th at h e w e nt partying and shopping after the killing. Mr
. the pool of blood
. The d e fe n dant inform e d Mr. Sarver of the limit of $500

. 00 on the victim's Mr. Campbell came to the victim's residence and removed the sheets on the bed revealing Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM- - · · · ., . 

# _ 1 9 both of their names. Ms. Babich, who was a mort ga ge proce s sor and notary public,

. facilitated the tr ansfer by having th e de e d pre par ed , notarizing Ms. Grosskopf's s ign ature ,
: re c ording the d e ed and paying the recordin g fe e and transfer taxes, for which she wa s
: subsequently reimbursed
. Patri cia Celes t e, th e ne x t door nei g hbor and friend o f the victim, observ e d a black

· eye o n the victim on one occa s ion and her leg to b e injured at a s ubsequent meeting, both
; injurie s which th e victim attributed to the d e fend ant When M s. Cel e ste c onfronted the

· defend ant regarding the Incid e nts, he apo l ogized for his actions
. He further expl ained th at the bla c k eye o cc u rred when h e be c ame angry with the victim for refu si ng to e at dinn e r he

· had pre par ed and he had struck the v i ctim with the food plate. The l e g Injury resulted from Mr. C ampbell ac ci de n tly pulling a loose kitc hen cabin e t from I ts h i nges c au s ing it to s trike th e victim
. Staci e Delp, Kristine Rame r and N ancy Pr anske y , all co-worke rs of the victim , n o ted black eyes on th e victim , with M s . Delp al so ob s ervi n g the injur e d l eg . On l y Ms
. Pran s key testified that the vi cti m told her th at th e i njurie s w e r e infl ic ted by Mr. C ampb e ll
. On th e e v e ning of M ay 9, 2009, wh il e Mr. C ampb ell, hi s wi fe and hi s friend, Martin C os tan z a , w e re p atr on s at H arv ey Run Inn, a lo cal tav e rn, Crys tal B arn es, an empl o yee,
ov e rhe ard Mr
. C ampbell, following a telephon e co nv e rs ati o n , s ay l o udly to his wif e , "c h a c hin g, c ha- c hln g"
. M s . B arn es a dmitt e d to bein g un a w are of the me anin g of M r . C ampb e ll ' s
rem ark s. Appro x im ate l y two t o thr e e m onth s followin g th e victim' s de ath, M r . Campb e ll w as
a dvised b y c orr es ponden ce from W al-M art, the victim's emp l oyer, th at h e was the b e n e fici ary of th e vi cti m ' s re ti re ment a cc o unt in th e amount of $ 1 ,89 3
. 3 4 and life in s ur an c e

Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM20

testimony

_ during parts of each of those three days. Since defendant had the burden of Relief Act (hereinafter PCRA) Petition on August 4, 6 and 8, 2014
. The Court heard As noted earlier, the Court conducted a hearing on defendant's Post Conviction 

### 1. Thomas Kurt Fuchel B. Facts and Evidence Adduced at the PCRA Hearing 

### Held 

## on Au211st 4, 6 and 

# a. 2014
. had physically abused the victim in the past opportunity to kill the victim, s ince he would benefit financially by her death, and that he • committed the crime
. The thrust of the defense was that Mr. Campbell had the motive and however, he alleges that the Commonwealth failed to sustain its burden of proving that he As noted above, the defendant does not dispute that Ms. Grosskopf was murdered ; • that she was treated on several occasions as a result of injurie s s ustained by falling. ; Heritage Vall e y-Beaver Hospital for the period from 2004 through 2008, which revealed In rebuttal, the Commonwealth introduced the medical records of the victim from . $10,000

. 00 due to its deteriorated condition. . mortgage was approximately $30,000.00 with the value of the home estimated at . sole owner following the victim's death. Testimony indicated that the balance of the Mr. Campbell also was the surviving joint tenant of the residence, and thus became retirement account and the life Insurance as a result of Ms. Grosskopf's death
. ' to receiving notice from her employer. He, in fact; received the proceeds from both the I to her death. Mr
. Campbell denied any knowledge that he was the victim's beneficiary prior beneficiary as her common-law husband on June 27, 2005, approximately four years prior benefits in the amount of $22,000.00. The victim had designated Mr. Campbell the Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM21

witnesses for the opposing side. Dennerlein, both before and during trial, regarding what information to use. He conceded - / that use of prior criminal convictions under Pa.R.Evld. §609 is a significant tool to impeach other information to use in this case. Fuchel claimed that he had discussions with stated that he believed it was his decision regarding what portions of the discovery or claims that this prompted him to make sure the defendant received the discovery. Fuchel to Fuchel, defendant Dennerleln complained about not receiving discovery, and Fuchel Fuchel indicated that the Commonwealth provided extensive discovery. According did or did not do or know in connection with the charges. meet with the client early in the case to discuss strategy and to discuss what the defendant information as to when he met with the defendant He did admit that it was significant to case, but indicated that was his standard practice. Fuchel couldnot provide any specific did not recall whether he met with the defendant before the preliminary hearing in this practice to speak with the client prior to the preliminary hearing in the lock-up facility. He Fuchel testified that he handled the preliminary hearing. He testified that it was his case. preliminary hearing stage and continue with the case through trial. Fuchel did that in this Dennerleln trial, for an Assistant Public Defender to begin representation in a case at the the PCRA hearing. Fuchel first testified that it was protocol or procedure, at the time of the defender at that time named Rebecca Fields, who was not called to testify by either party at Esquire, who was lead defense counsel at the trial. He was assisted by a new public proof, the defendant first called witnesses. Defendant first called Thomas Kurt Fuchel, Sr., Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM22 The first issue raised by defendant is the failure to use prior convictions and other information for purpose s of impeaching key Commonw e alth witnes s es. Coun s el for

· Dennerl e in at the PCRA hearing initially questioned Fuchel about a Commonwe alth witness

: by the name of Laura Rankin. R ankin had , and te s tified to, information regarding defendant

: u s ing th e victim' s credi t/debit to make bank withdrawals. Fuchel testifi e d that it wa s his

· theory that Robert Campbell, who was a former boyfriend of th e victim , committed the murder
. Fuchel continu e d by s tating th at he believed that Rankin was actually a helpful
• witnes s to the d e fense because she also had information that the defendant used the

. victim's credit/debit c ard not only at and shortly after the time of the murder, but also
• prior to that tim e . Rankin al s o testified that defendant had th e PIN for the credit card further confirming. ac c ording to Fuch e l, that her tes ti mony would actu ally indicate that

· defendant did not just use th e credit card afte r the murder, but also before the murder showing his con se nted-to access to the card. Fuchel thought this was b e n e ficial testimony
and pointed to Vo l ume IV of the trial transcript, page 30, line 25, through page 341, lin e s 1·

· . 3
. Defen s e coun s el at the PCRA hearing pointed out and entered exhibits to confirm that R ankin had convictions for retail theft , trademark counterfeiting and theft by unlawful taking, all of which were crimes of crfmen 

### fals i. The Commonw e alth confirmed, on cross· examination, that Fuchel did not want to impeach Rankin becau s e s he was actually favorabl e to def

e ndant's position I n this case. However, defense counsel noted for the Court that at Volume IV, page 341 of the trial transcript, Fuchel cross-examined Rankin about
u s ing crack cocaine In the pres e nc e of h e r child, which was a form of imp e achm e nt, but y e t chose not to Impeach he r credibility with crimes of crimen falsi. Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM2 3 Th e sec o nd C ommonw ealth wi tne ss w ho had prior crimi nal c on victi on s w as

. Zach ary V alentine. V alentine w as defend ant's cell m ate at the Be av er C o u nty J ail , and ' Valentin e testi fie d at tri al reg ardin g defendant' s ad miss io n s ab ou t his (defend ant' s ) involvement in the killing. Fu c hel te s ti fi ed th at he dis c u s s e d V alentine wi th D e nnerl ei n, and acc ordi n g t o

, Fuc he l, d efe nd ant Dennerl e in confirm e d th at s om e of th e s tate m ents th at V alenti ne m a de

, in a re port o f inte rvi e w w e r e true . Fuchel cl ai ms that h e co ntinu o u s l y c aution e d Denn e rlei n not t o have conv e r s ati o n s with V alentine
. D e nne rl ei n ne ver a dmitted h is gu il t to Fu c hel , but , a cc ordi ng to Fuch e l , th e de fen dant did co nfirm s ome o f th e thi n gs th at Val e n tine s aid
. I nt eresting l y and be wi ld eri n g to the Cou rt wa s Fu c h e l 's co n c ern ab out p erj ury i f defend ant t estifie d at tri al becau se d efe n dan t all eg edl y s aid he was g oi ng to lie at tri al regar di n g th e s t ateme n ts th at V al en tin e m a d e . T h is h ad very little, 

### i f anyth i n g, to do with
r e gard to w hy Fu c hel did n ot c r os s - e x amin e V al e n ti n e. Wh e n p r essed b y d efe n s e cou n sel at th e PCRA h e arin g, Fu c h e l c onfi rm ed th at he must imp e a c h th is type of witn e s s. V al e n ti n e had a c o nvictio n for th eft b y d ecep ti o n, an d an o th er c o nvictio n i n Fayette C o u nty. Fu c h e l
co nfirmed that h e di d no t qu es ti o n V alentin e abo u t th ese matt ers , and Pu ch e l I nd icated th at i t w as i na dv ert ent n ot to u se th e m, th at the y mu s t h ave slip p ed thro u g h the c r acks and th at h is deci s io n n o t t o u se th e m w a s b a d in hind s i g ht A third C o mm o nwe alth witne s s w ho t estifie d agains t de fe nd an t w a s J ame s Sarv e r. Sarve r w a s an o th er j ai lh o use in fo rm an t , who in d ic ate d th at de fe n d an t ad mitte d to the ki lli ng . Sarver al so h ad a co nvi c ti o n fo r t e rroristi c thr eats . Althou g h n ot a crim e n falsi
c rim e, S arv er wa s o n pr obation , an d Fu c he l c o ul d h ave qu estio n e d Sarv er o n w heth er he
ex p e cted any fav or ab le treatme n t on a prob ation vi o l ati on , which w a s neve r done
. Fuc hel Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM

### 24

was informed by the Commonwealth that he would not be charged for providing drug s to around the time of the homicide. (Trial Transcript , Vol. IV, p . 274)
. Brown conceded that he witness to testify regarding defendant's drug purch a ses or attempts to purchase drugs at or I

. ' The sixth Commonwealth witness was Patrick Brown. Brown · w a s the s e cond recall why he did not use them for cross - examination purpo s es. unlawful taking. Both of these crimes were of a crimen falsi natur e and Fuchel could not Vol. IV, p . 247). Silberger had a conviction for burgl ary and a second conviction for theft by told him (Silberger) that the victim was In Maryland visiting her brother. (Trial Transcript, (Silberger) questioned Dennerlein concerning the wher e abouts of the victim, Oennerfein (Silberger) at or around the time of th e murder. Silherger further testified that when he th at defend ant Dcnnerlein purchased sev e ral thousand dollars of cra c k cocaine from him The fifth Commonwealth witness was Brian Silberger
. At trial, Silberger testified i

. favorable to the defen s e in that it tended to implicat e Campbell.

witn e ss, but did not do so in this case because he believed that Carter' s testimony was us e to cross-examine her. Fuchel indicated that he would normally Impeach thi s type of to Kelly Carter
. Carter had a conviction for receiving s tolen property, which Fuchel did not Fuchel Intended to pin blame on, s aw blood on a dog at the residence and pointed this out . · to th e residence aft e r the crime and was present when Robert Campbell, the per s on who A fourth Commonw e alth witness who testified was Kelly Carter. Kelly Carter came could not explain hi s failure to us e this Information. terroristic threats probationary situation for cross-examination purposes at trial. Fuchel 153, of the trial transcript Fuchel conceded that , in hind s ight , he should have used th e did question Sarver about a simple a s sault charg e that was dismis s ed, at Volume V, p a ge Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM25

the defendant Fuchel questioned Brown regarding the fact that he would not be charged, going to Brown's bias or motive to testify, but neglected to question him about two pending cases and the potential for favorable treatment or leniency in those cases based on this testimony. Fuchel confirmed that it would make sense to question the witness on these issues, but added that he was not sure he knew about these charges. Fuchel conceded that the use of such impeachment material could increase the chance of acquittal. - The second issue raised by defendant in his PCRA petition was testimony that revealed defendant's incarceration at the time of trial. Fuchel confirmed that a defense lawyer usually attempts to preclude reference to the client being in jail. Fuchel noted, however, that it was extremely difficult in this case because of others who testified regarding admissions made by the defendant and who were in jail with him. Fuchel stated that he did discuss this issue with the defendant and con finned that the reference to being in jail was an Important issue. Fuchel was pressed by present defense counsel, and Indicated that he thinks he discussed this Issue in detail with the defendant, but was not sure. It was at this point that Fuchel added that he had problems communicating with the defendant during trial and that most of the problems for this lack of communication lie with the client (defendant). According to Fuchel, he gave discovery to the defendant twice. He said he mailed the discovery the first time, and defendant said he did not receive it This, according to Fuchel, prompted him to go to the jail personally and deliver the discovery In the presence of the Assistant Warden. Fuchel said there were two occasions at the jail when he had problems with defendant Dennerleln. Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM26 Fuchel testified that, at one of these two instances, the defendant became very

, physical and threw the public defender's paralegal, Dionna Steele, to the ground and went

, after Fuchel. Fuchel stated that Dennerlein became verbally abusive on a second o c casion
.

. He indicat ed that Dennerleln caused these disruptions
. As to the issue of defendant being in jail , Fu c hel added that it was trial str ategy for

. this information to come into e vidence because Fuchel thought it would be helpful for the jury to know that the individuals who were testifying were also in jail. The Commonwe alth brought out the fa c t that they obj e cted when Fuchel went down thi s road, and Fuchel asked for a sid ebar with the Court at trial and confirmed that he wanted thi s information before the jury. The Commonwealth stipulated that the information came before the jury at the requ e st of defendant with no obj e ction or curative Instruction requested. Fuchel was also questioned r egarding the third Issue r aised by the defendant, namely, wh e the r Zachary Valentine was acting as an agent of the government when he was debriefed by the Commonwe alth and then placed back in the s ame cell with the defendant Present defense counsel a s s erts that thi s gives rise to the basis for a mo ti on to suppress the statem e nts made to Valentine on the basis that Valentine may have been acting as an agent for the Commonwealth in securing admis s ions without Miranda warnings. Fuchel s aid he did not know that Valentine was questioned and placed back in th e same cell and never
con s ide r ed this Issue or argumen t The fourth is s ue wa s general failure to cross-e x amine witnesses
. For ex ample, pre s ent defense couns e l brought to Fuchel's attention that the Commonwealth only placed into evidence bank record s of the victim at or near the time of the homi ci de to establish Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM27 Dennerlein c o nfirm e d that p arale g al Dionna S te ele c ame to th e jail s ev e r al time s to meet with him, and on one oc c a s ion Fuch e l w a s also pre s ent A s to the Incident in which

2. 

### Benjamin James Dennerlein The defendant, Benjamin Jame s D e nnerleln, al s o testified at the PCRA hearing
. • Defendant Dennerlein was present throughout the hearing
. Dennerlein t e stified that Fuchel , with the a s sistance of another As s istant Public
• Defender, Beth Manifesto, handled his prellmlnary hearing on August 1, 2009. Dennerlein testified that he never met with Fuchel prior to the preliminary hearing and that Fuchel

•· never came to the j ail to see him and never spoke with him In the lock-up prior to the
: preliminary hearing. Th e fir s t time th at d e fendant Dennerlein actually met with, and sa w, Fuchel wa s i n the courtroom wh e n th e prelimin ary he arin g o c curred
. The n e xt s tep In the process was the arraignment In October of 2009. Defend ant wa s inc arc e r at e d betw e en the time of the preliminary hearing and the arraignment, and testifi e d th at he had no contact with Fuchel between the time of th e pre liminary hearing
and the arraignment D e nn e rl e ln s tated th at a priv at e inv es tigator
. for th e public d e fend e r's offi ce did
com e to the j ail in early 2 010 to g ath e r information and th at Fuchel came to the j ail lat e r in January of 2010 and s e veral time s between J anuary of 2 010 and the tim e of trial in July of 2010. that defendant was using the credit/debit card at that time and thereby establi s h a motiv e for the killing
. Present defense counsel pointed out that Fuchel neglected to use prior bank

r ecord s to indicate that d e fendant had used the credit/debit card well in a dvance of the homicide. · Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM28

j Fuchel claimed that Denne rlein be cam e verbally abu s ive and physical, the defendan t

. testified that Fu c hel actually got in h is face and that h e (defendant) di d not get phy s ical with Fuchel. Dennerl e ln state d th at th e incident got very loud and that a jail guard came

. into the room b e caus e of the noise. Accordi ng to D e nnerlein, Dionna Steele advised the guar d that the defendant did nothing wrong . Dennerlein went on to state that, aft e r hi s conviction in this ca s e, h e had to file hi s own appeal becau s e Fuchel neglected to timely file the appeal. No post-sentence motion
wa s filed. Fuchel requested several extensions to fi le a brief for the appeal, and the appeal
wa s ev e ntually reman d ed to the trial court by the Superior Court becau s e of thi s . Pres e nt defense coun s el was appointe d and handled the appeal. Defend ant tes ti fied that throug h out the trial , and early appeal proceedings, defendant's mother was providing lett e r s to Fuchel, which Fuchel failed to respond to. Defendant filed his own PCRA petition in September of 2013 and pre s ent defense coun s el filed a supplement In April, 2014. The defendant did address s pecific comm e nts and all e gations rai s ed by Fuchel. As to the t e stimony of Zachary Val e ntine, defendant advised that Fuch e l told h i m that Valen ti ne was going to testify that d e fendant confessed to Valentine and that thi s te stimony may hurt at trial. D e fendant testified that he nev e r said he would perjure him s elf
. According to defend ant, he (defendant) requeste d that Fuchel cros s -examin e Valentine with imp e achment material , and Fuchel r esponded that he did not want to complicate the ca se . D e fendant was adamant about th e fact that h e pres s ed Fuchel to impeach Val e ntine. As to Laura Rankin, defendant claims that he actually brought som e of th e crimen 

### Jals i convicti o ns to Fuchel' s attention
. Defendant te stified that Fuch e l nev e r advised him : I Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM29

(d e fendant) that h e w o uldn't u s e the I nform ation ag ain s t Ranki n b ec au s e s he wa s

. fav orabl e . Instead , defendant te stified that Fuchel did no t even know about R ankin's prior

: convictio n s until de fe ndant brought them to hi s attention
. Wi th r egard to all of the Commonwealth witn es ses who had prior c onvicti o n s , defendant testifi e d that he was not aware that a co rrupt and pollute d source ch arg e wa s in order and th at Fuchel nev e r requeste d one. It was only after present defense counsel

, brought this to defend ant ' s attention that he wa s awar e of th i s . As to the i ssue of defendant's i n carc e ration being brought up at trial, defendant

. stated that Fu c h e l told him during trial that a deputy sh e riff would menti o n that th e
• defendant wa s in jail after a sideb ar with the Court, but also stated that Robert Campbell had already te stified to It and ther e fore it would come In. Ac c ordin g to defendant , Fuchel

never di sc u s sed thi s i ss u e with him in a dv anc e or wheth e r It wa s part of th e tri al s trate gy. Def e nd ant claimed that he kn e w it w a s not ri g ht for thi s information to c om e in bec au se th e sh e riff w e nt to g reat len gths t o kee p the jury from s e e ing def e ndant being e s corted to the courtroom by de p uty s heriff s in h and c uffs and s h ac kle s during br e aks in th e trial. D efe n dant te sti fied that wh e n it w a s tim e fo r th e defen s e c as e to begin, def ens e
couns e l called multiple witn es s e s in a brief period and th e n turned t o him (d e fendant) and said "you're n e xt, but I sugge s t you not te s tify. " Defendant c o nt e nd s that thi s i s th e only time Fuch e l di s cu s s e d w i th him whe th e r or not to t es tify. With r e g ard to the thi r d i s su e , nam e ly, Z a chary Val e ntin e p otenti ally being an ag e nt of the g ov e rnment , Dennerlein t es ti fie d Fu c hel nev e r di s cu ss ed thi s i ss ue with him. It came to li g ht th at V al e ntin e h a d te stifi e d 

# for the Commonw e alth in other ca ses and th at neither de fe ndant nor Fu c hel knew thi s . , · Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM30 Denne rlein testified that he wrote a letter to the Trial Judge (Dohanich) regarding failure to receive discovery. Dennerlein claims that Fuchel came to the jail angry after receiving notice that Dennerlein wrote a letter to the Judge. Defendant claims that Puchel came Into the cell, crumbled the letter, told him (defendant) never to writ e a letter to the Judge again, told defendant that he (Fuchel) was going to trial with what information he had, and told defendant that he (defendant) was going to burn. After this discourse , Fuchel left the cell according to the defendant With regard to the bank record s , defendant was aware that the Commonwealth wanted to focus on bank records for five days after the homicide. Defendant knew that all of the bank records would show that he had made numerous withdraw als from the victim' s account for a long period of time prior to the incident Defendant claims that he kept encouraging Fuchel to get the bank records and video surveillance of the ATM machine, but Fuchel never looked into this matter, stating that it was too late.



### 3. R2bert 

### Chamberlain The defendant also called 

### Beaver County Detective Robert Chamberlain as a witness at the PCRA hearing. Chamberlain was a co-affiant on the criminal charges filed against Dennerlein, The Detectives' Bureau is part of the Beaver County District Attorney's Office. Detective Chamberlain was questioned about the 

### involvement of Zachary Valentine in this case and his use as a witness by the Commonwealth
. Chamberlain testified that he did not know Zachary Valentine prior to the Dennerleln case. Chamberlain testified that he met with Zachary Valentine twice during this case. According to Chamberlain, Valentine · first came to the attention of the Commonwealth when Valentine's wife called the District Attorney's Office and advised that Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM3 1 a represen tative of th e District Attorn e y s hould speak to Valentine regarding the Dennerlein ca s e. Thi s caused th e Di s tri ct Attorney's Offic e to re quest tran s port of Valentine from the Beaver County Jail to the Beaver County Courthouse for qu e stioning on May 18, 2009, prior to the trial in this c as e . Chamberlain advi s ed that h e s e cured all of Valentine's

. knowledge and Information in the intervi e w of May 18, 2009 and h a d no intention of spe aking with him ag ain short of reque s ting his te stimony at the trial. Chamberl ain did

• indicate that there eventu ally arose th e need for a s econd m e etin g for th e purpo s e of

. having Valentine dr a w a diagram of th e crime s c e ne . Chamb e rl ai n indi cate d that he did no t

· know that Val e ntine h a d serv e d a s a witn es s for the Commonw e alth i n prior ca s e s at the

. tim e he int e rvi e wed V al e ntine in 2 009. Chambe rlai n learned thi s lat e r throu g h di scus s i o n with another B e ave r County D e t e cti v e , Kim Clemen ts . Ac c ording to Chamberl ai n, Val e ntin e exp r ess e d fe ar of b e ing In the s ame ce ll with the d e fen d ant , and Chamberlain te s ti fied th at he n e v e r told Val e ntine to kee p hi s eyes and e ars op e n about th e c as e or to s o lici t any further info rm ation fr om Denn e rl e in aft e r the Initi al I nt e rvi e w o n May 18, 200 9. On c ro s s-examination, Chamb erl ain t es tifi e d th at h e w a s abl e to corroborat e Val e n ti ne' s informati on giv e n durin g the interview , In fact, Chamb e rl ain state d that h e l e ft th e I nt ervie w r o o m on s e v e r al occasions du ring the Inte rvi e w t o c h e c k V al e nti ne ' s state m e nt and w as ab l e to co nfirm wh at he w as sayin g b ase d up o n re vi e w ofphon e recor d s and phot o s of th e crim e s c en e . C h ambe rl ain was th e fi n al witne s s c all e d b y th e d efe n se .

4 . 

### Kim Clem

e nts T h e pr o sec u ti o n c o mm e n ce d i ts ca se on Friday , Augu s t 8, 2 014. Th ey fi rst call e d D e te cti ve Kim Cl e m e n ts . C l e m e n ts t estifie d regardin g Z a ch ary V al e ntin e . S h e state d th at
s h e kn e w V al e ntin e a s a r es ul t of hi s prio r t esti mon y for the Commonw eal th i n an other Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM32

that was not in the Chambe rlai n r eport , but no major inconsi s tencies. St Clai r did not know specifics on dates of interv i ews. Also, there was additional information In St. Cl air's r e port infere nc e that th e re wer e a number o f int e rviews with V alentine. There are no othe r th at was in c on s istent with Chamberl ain and Clements was th at St Clair's report raise s th e solici t any additional information from Dennerlein
. The one thing th at St Cl air testified to at the crime scene. St Clai r also confirm e d that he g ave no instructions to V al e ntine to sp e cific information regarding D e nnerlein ' s stat e ment that coincided with e vidence found I

. I referring to h is report and was permitted to do so . St Clair did re c all that Valentine gave

St Cl air i ndicated that he could not recall all of the detail s of the intervi e w without int e rview. St C lair was the co-affiant on the crimin al charges with Detectiv e Chamberlain. Department. St. Clair· is now the chief, but wa s a serg e ant at the time of th e V alentine The next Commonwealth witness was Chief Eugene St Clai r of the Fre e dom Police 5. 

### Eu(lene St. Clair stated that she w as involved in his p r eparation for testimony at trial. · him to do so . Clements confirmed that th e re was a second intervi e w of Val e n ti ne and also On cros s - e xamination , Clements admitted that she believed Valentine may come ~

. b a ck with some additional information after th e first Int e rview , but she never i nstructed : the defendant or to act a s an agent for the Commonwe alth
. from th e pros e cu tion gave V a lentine any instructions to pursue further information from attention of the pro s ecution
. Clem e nts al so confirmed that neither she nor anyon e else . involvement in this ca se. She confirmed that it was Valentine ' s wife who brought h i m to the testified that she play e d no part in arrangi n g fo r V alentine to be Interviewed or in his homicid e cas e. She did participate in the Valentine interview on M ay 18, 2 009. Clements Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM3 3

: V alentine prior to th e interview i n ques ti on . St Clair i ndicate d th at he o nl y in te rvie wed V al e ntine in the pr e s e nc e o f B e aver County det ec tiv e s , but did r e c all that he wa s inv o lv e d in int e rvi e ws on more th an on e o c ca si on.

6
. 

## Dionna Steek Th e fin al wi tn e s s called by th e C ommonw ealth w a s D io nna S teele , a par aleg al In th e

· B e ave r County Pub l i c D e f e nd er's Offic e . Thi s te s ti mony w as th e m os t troub li ng fo r the Court with r eg ard to th e P C RA h e arin g. R ef ere nce t o Att o rn e y Fuc hel' s te sti m o n y ab o ve refl e cts that he te s tifi e d to an In ci d e n t at th e B e av er C o un ty J ai l In which Fuchel cl aim e d th at Denn e rl e ln b e c ame ho s til e in an atto rn e y intervi e w ro o m with D io nna S teele pr ese nt. Fu c h e l t esti fi e d that D e nnerl e in pushed ~ s. S t e e le t o th e g roun d and cam e af t er Fu c h e l , M s. St e el e ga v

e quit e a differe nt ve r si o n o f that event. Sh e re call e d th at s he to o k an e n ve l o p e to th e j ail fro m Attorn e y Fu c h e l t o d e liver to Dennerl e ln
. She indicat e d that s he h a d met wi th D e nn e rlein on a numb e r of oc ca s i ons at the jai l and n e v e r h a d a pr o bl e m with h i m . On th e p arti c ular occ a si o n when s he took the e n ve l o p e to th e J ail for Att orn ey Fuch e l , s h e w as in

. the att orn e y m ee ting r oom with D enn e rl e ln Wh e n Fu c h e l e nt e r e d the roo m . Sh e te s tifi e d th at Fu c h e l b e gan yellin g at the d e fend ant and the d e f en d ant b e g an to ye ll bac k She b e came fri g ht e n e d and st ep p e d ba c k , Sh e a ctuall y push e d th e emerg ency button I n th e
room b e c aus e of th e s itu ation
. S he stated that Fu c h e l be gan to back up and actu all y ba cke d int o h e r . D e nn e rleln th o u g ht s h e may fall an d gr abbe d her arm t o p re v e nt h er fr o m fallin g . Other th an thi s , S t e e l e te s ti fi ed that Denn e rl e in n ev e r touch e d h e r. A j ail gu ard cam e In to th e r oo m, and Ste el e told th e gu ard th at the d efen d ant di d not d o anyth i ng wro n g . O n b oth direct and c r o ss - examination , S t eel e t e s ti fi ed th at i t was A ttorn e y Fuch e l who g ot i nto the defendan t's fa ce . She s peclfi cally t esti fie d that th e s i tuation was e scalate d Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM3 4 2. Th at the re w a s p r e j udici al e rror to th e d e fendant in that th ere wa s a r eferenc e to d efe nd ant' s Inc arc e ration durin g th e 1
. Th at def

e n se co u n s el fail e d to cr o ss -ex ami n e witnes se s o n th e b as is of bia s and prio r criminal re cor ds of crim e n falsi o r otherwise; follow s: The d e fend an t ' s PCRA p e ti ti on h a s raise d four claims h e re . Tho se clai m s ar e a s A. 

### Claims Made by the Defendant 

### ANALVSJS [Fuch e l) at th e tim e of th e i ncident p rosec u ti on witn e ss, who actu ally wo rked in the s ame offic e as Defen s e T ri al Cou nse l Fu ch el, and sh e s pecific ally undercut Fuchel's ve rs ion of th e events . Th i s cam e from a Th e Court questioned S teel e in an atte mpt to c o mp are h e r te s timony with th at of b e c ause sh e b e liev e d th at and did not w ant to s ee D e nn e rle i n rec ei v e s an c tion s at the jail. she to l d th e j ail gu ard th at th e d e fendan t did nothing wrong in th e attorn ey m eeti ng room and th e fac t th at h e ( D en n erlein) w a s not re ceivi ng anyth i n g from Fuch e l. Steele state d th at She s tat e d th at De n n e rlein was v e ry frus tr ate d in h er discu s sions wi th h i m about disco v ery with h i m p rior t o tri al. In fa c t , s he s tated th at defendan t Denne rleln w as alw ay s r es pe ctfu l. St ee le to s ay that Dennerl e in never g av e h e r 

### a probl e m throu g hout the tim e that sh e met D efe n s e couns e l press e d St e ele on cross - ex amin ation and was successful i n g e tting re l ationsh i p b e tween th e two w a s hosti l e from th at p o int forw ard
. angry an d w a s cl early the aggre s sor in this s i tuation
. Acc or ding to Ste e le 's t es timony, the She said th at Fuch e l w as with in inch e s of D enne rle i n' s fac e . She s tate d that Fuch el was very and specifically recall e d that he walked tow ard Denn e rlein and got into hi s ( Puch el ' s ) fa ce. by Att o rn e y Fu c h e l pounding on th e tabl e . S he w a s startled by Attorn e y Fu ch e l 's a ctions Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM35 I Def en dant raised other i ssues in bis original P e ti tion, b ut these four i ssues are th e onl y real issu es pursued at the h eari n g o th er than some qu e s ti o ns regarding the direct appeal , which are di sc ussed i!J.frJ1

. counse l, with tho se thr ee p arts b e in g a s follow s : (1) th e u nd erl yi ng l e gal iss u e h as argu abl e thre e- p art t est . to d e t e rmi ne w h eth e r a d efen dant h as rece i ved in effecti v e a s s i stan c e of _____ 80 L.Ed
. 2d 674 , (1 9 8 4 )
. Th e P e nn s ylv ani a S up r em e C o urt se t fo rth a 1 32 (P a. 201 2 ) (ci tin g S tri c kla nd v . Wa s hington , 4 66 U.S. 668, 68 7

- 91, 104 S
. Ct 2052, de fi cie n t and th at suc h d efi cien cy pr e judi ce d him
. " 

### Co mmon we alth v. K oe hl e r, 36 A. 3 d 121 , . pr e sump tio n , the P CRA p e tition e r mu st d e mo ns tr ate · that c ou nse l 's p e rfo rm an c e w a s " I t i s w e ll- es tab lish e d th at c oun se l i s pr es um e d e ff e cti ve , and t o re but th at ,r1 3 of d e f

e n d ant' s Am en d ed Peti tion for Po st -C on vi cti on C oll ate ral R e li e f). is th e r e for e e n ti tl e d to ei th er a n ew tri al o r di s missal of th e ch ar ges agai n s t him. ( mp. 2 , D e fend an t c ont e nd s th at hi s trial c o un se l re nd e red in e ffecti ve a ss is tanc e and th at h e B
. 

### Applicable Law that will b e addre s se d b y the C o urt in the followi n g s ub se cti o ns. 1 The se are th e c o nt e nti o ns that tes ti m o ny and evide n ce was re ce iv e d on and ar e the i s su e s

4
. Th at def

e nd ant was de n ied the right t o con fro n tation under th e P e nn s ylv an i a and Un i ted Stat es Constitutions on th e b as i s of de fe n se c o uns e l' s ine ffecti ve c ro ss - e xamination
. 3
. That defens e couns e l failed to file a motion t o suppr e ss due to all e g e d interrog ati o n o f Zach ary V alentine, who wa s a ss erte d t o b e a gov e rnment a g e nt; and trial o f this case placed i nto eviden c e by both de fense coun s el and the Commonwe alth ; Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM36

Valentine wa s 

## nm given any instructions t o interr o gat e the d e f e ndan t or to o btai n any occasion by the detectiv e s , and the uncontradlct e d testim o ny furth e r· establi s hed th at to the contr ary, the e vidence e s tablished that Val e ntine w a s only que s tion e d on one This claim was not e stablished by the evidence adduced at the PCRA hearing
. In fact, without any Miranda warnings
. to the jail, alleg e dly to further question the defendant and obtain admi s sions from him Detectives at the Beaver County Courthouse in May of 2009, and was ther eafter sent ba c k Defendant goes on to contend that Valentine was transported to sp e ak with the County def e ndant about, and the defend ant a dmitted to, the killing of the victim in this ca se . acting as an agent for the CommonweaJth at the ti me that he had discuss i on s with the ri ghts unde r the Unit e d States Constitution were violated b e cau s e Zachary Val e ntine w as a government agent S pecificall y , h e ass e rts that his Fifth, Sixth and Fo u rtee n th Amendment motion to suppre s s due to defend ant's alleg e d interrogati on, without Miranda warnings, by Defendant's third claim asserts th at counsel was ineffecti ve fo r failure to file a C. Defendant's Claims 3 (That defense counsel failed to file a motion to suppress due to alleged Interrogation of Zachary Valentine, who was asserted to be a government agent) and 4 (A denial of the right to confrontation und e r the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions on the basis of defens e 

## counsel's Ineff

e ctive cross·cxamtnatlon) Lack Merit defendant's four cl aims under these param e te r s . 527 A2d 973, 975 (1987). The C ourt must analyze 

### · Pi e rce, 5 15 Pa. 153, ___, pr e judi ced by counsel's act or omission. 

### Koehl e r, 36 A. 3 d at 132 (clung 

### Co mmonw e alth v. merit; (2) counsel's a ctions lacke d an objective reasonable basis; and (3) the defendant was Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM37

C o mmonweal th wi tn ess. In essence, d e f en dan t claim s th at no t o nly w as the evi d en ce br o u gh t th e fact th at de fe n dant' s o wn co uns e l e licit e d thi s te stimony throu gh c ross-examination o f a evid e n ce by th e Co mm o nwealth th at he was incar cer ated pri o r t o and durin g th e tri al, b ut al s o D e f en dant c lai m s th at he was p r eju di ced i n this cas e b y n ot o nl y th e admiss ion of D
. Defendant ' s Second Claim (Alleged Improper Ref e rence At Trial to Incarceration of Defendant) Must be Denied Because Def

e nse Coun s el had a Reasonable Strategic Basis for Hi s Action In Admitting the Bvlden c e, and th e 

## ,1ahn Also Lacks Medt and th e e vid e nc e a dduce d at th e PCRA h e aring. I Court , d o e s n o t arise to a me ritori o us cl aim bas e d upon the evi d enc e in 

### th e trial tran sc rip t

the Fa cts se cti on ab o ve (Trial Tr., Vol. IV, pp. 340·4 1 ). T his iss u e , i n the e sti mati o n of the te s timony that th e d e fen dant not on ly had a cce s s t o th e c ard , but also th e PIN as stated in I

. de fe nd ant w a s a c co r d e d th e ab ility t o pl a c e thi s m att e r b e fore th e jury by Rankin 's

Th e evid e n ce of r ec ord estab lish es , thro ug h the t es ti mo ny o f L au ra Rankin , that the a dv anc e of the sam e, th er eby s howing that def e ndant h a d con s ent e d

- to a cce s s t o the c ard. th e victim' s credit/d e bit c ard not o nly at o ur around th e tim e o f th e h o micide , bu t al s o in pri o r b an k stat e m e n ts t o cro ss- e x ami n e witne sses and e stab li s h that d e fend ant h a d u se d defen se c ouns el at th e h eari ng i n Augu s t, 2 014 w as that trial d e f e ns e c oun s el failed to u s e e xaminatio n by de f

e n s e c oun se l, must be d en ied for l a ck of merit Th e maj or i s sue r ais ed by cr os s- exami nati on of th os e wi tne ss e s tes ti fyi ng ag ainst him bec ause of th e l ac k o f c r o s sAlso, def

en d ant's fourth claim, nam e ly that he wa s de ni e d the right o f effective _ him. W i thout e vi den ce to s up po rt thi s claim , i t must be d e n ie d fo r l ac k of ar guab le m e ri t fu rth er a dmissi ons fr o m him by the C o un ty d e t ectiv es o r p oli c e officer s w ho i nt erviewe d Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM38 

### j before the jury by testimony, but al s o that defen se counsel did not request a curative instruction

. with regard to the testimony
. The trial transcript and the testimony of Attorney Fu c hel at the PCRA hearing established

. that defen s e counsel asked Commonwealth witn es s Robert Campbell where he met the defendant, and th e response was th at Campbell m e t the def e ndant while both wer e in jail. At the PCRA hearing , as noted in the Facts s ec tion above , Fuchel testified that it was his trial strategy

. for thi s inform ation to come into evidence bec ause he thought it would be helpful for the jury to know that Campbell, who was the individual that defen s e coun s el hoped to pin blame on, had been in jail in the p as t and, therefore, had a questionable b a ckground himself. The Commonwealth stipulated, at the PCRA hearing, that this inf o rmation came before the jury at the request of the defendant with n o objection or curative instruction requested. To the Court's information and understandin g , there w as no reference as to why the defendant was in jail befor e
or during the trial. The only r e fer e nce was t o the fact that defendant was in jail. "Generally, where matte rs of s trate g y and tactics are con c erned, coun s el' s as si s tance i s deemed con s titutionally e ffe c tive if he cho s e a particular course that had som e reason able basis de s igned 

## to eff

ec tuate hi s client 's intere s t" Commonw ea lth v, Howard, 553 P a . 266,
_ 719 A.2d 233, 237 (1998). The Howard Court al s o noted that a claim for ineffective as s i s tance of coun s el cannot succeed by s imply comparing, by hind s ight, the trial s trategy employed with alternatives n ot pursued
. "A finding that a c ho s en s trategy lacked a reasonable basi s is n o t warranted unl es s it can be concluded that an altern ativ e not cho s en offered a potential for s ucces s sub s tantially greate r than th e cours e a ctually pursued." Id. In this cas e , the trial t es timony not only in c luded the referen ces noted with regard to the C ampb e ll t es timony n o ted abov e, but also included the t es timony of Z achary Valentine, who was Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM

### 39 defendant's cell mate when admissions regarding the homicide and defendant's involvement in the same were made
.. Valentine's testimony clearly reflected that the admissions were made while he and the defendant were incarcerated together. (Trial Tr. Vol. V, pp.160-16). This reference was unavoidable in order to set the stage in which the admis s ions occurred. Again, there was no reference to why the defendant was in jail. Defense counsel made it clear that his strategy was to attempt to paint a sordid picture of

. · Commonwealth witnesses, such as Campbell and Valentine , by not only permitting references to their past as prisoners when questioned by the Commonwealth, but also by bringing it out himself when he questioned the witnesses. This trial strategy cannot be said to be unreasonable under the circumstances
. Furthermore, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in Commonwealth v . Johnson, 838 A.2d 663 (Pa. 2003) is instructive and warrants a determination that this claim lacks merit. In Johnson, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court specifically stated that "although generally no reference may be made at trial in a criminal case to a defendant's arrest or incarceration for a previous crime
... there is no rule in Pennsylvania which prohibits reference to a defendant's incarceration awaiting trial or arrest for the crimes charged." Id. at · 680 (citation omitted). In Johnson , the Supreme Court also cited Commonwealth v. Wilson, 538 Pa. 485, 506-07, 649 A.2d 435, 445-46 (1994) for the proposition that testimony indicating that the defendant was incarcerated prior to trial was not improper where the jury could reasonably infer that the defendant's incarceration was the result of the criminal acts for which the defendant was on trial. In thi s case, although there was reference to the fact that defendant was in jail prior to trial, there was no reference as to why he was in jail, which would give rise to the inference that the Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM40 with re gar d to the me e ting betw ee n Attorney Fuchel and d efe ndant at th e B e av e r C o unty J ail pri o r to tri al ref

e r e n c ed in th e F a cts s e ction abov e . Fuch e l fre nd e d that th e d e fend ant Moreover, the C o urt was troubl e d by th e s tark c o ntr a st of the v e rsions of the ev e n ts know abo u t the c rimes so that he could use them in c ross -e xamin ation. m ann e r , wh y h e did not question th es e witne s se s with reg ard to the s e c rim es or did not counsel's answ e r s we re Inexplicable. He c onsistently could not expl ain, in a rati o nal purpo s es could in c r ea se the chanc e of a cquittal "in a prosecution of this typ e . " D e f e ns e importantly, his admi s sion that the use of c rim e s of 

### crim e n fa/sl for cro s s -e xami nati o n examine Brian Silberger with his c onvictions for c rimes of 

### er/m e n falsi ; and , mo s t 

### crimen falsi to cross-examine Jame s Sarver; that he could not re call why he di d not cr o s s - "slipped throu g h the cr a cks": th at in hindsight, " he should have u s ed" the conviction s of prior convictions for crimes of 

### c rim e n fals i with reg ard t o Z a chery Valentin e m ay hav e 

### ., for cross-examin ation purpos e s. Couns e l (Fuch e l) used such t e rms in hi s t esti m o n y as the credibil i ty or th at he s imply did not take the time to discover that such inform ation e xi sted Commonw e alth witn e ss e s with regard to crimes of crtm e n falsi th at c ould affect th e ir from defense counsel's testimony that he eith e r completely negl e cted to cross - exami n e ke y This issu e was the mo s t troubling to the Court in this ca s e . It was abundantly cle ar E
. Defendant's First Claim (That Defense Counsel Was Ineffective for Failing to Cross

- Examine Commonwealth Witnesses for Bias and Prior Criminal Records, Especially 0f Crim en Falsi} is Meritorious But Does Meet the 

### Prejudice Threshold to Overturn the ~rdkt For these reasons , defendant's second claim roust be denied
. under Johnson and Wilson. defendant w as d e tai ned as a r es ult of the case for which h e was on trial and, ther e fore, proper Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM41 T h e ' prej udi ce ' pr o n g. und e r the P C RA , i s satisfied w h en the pe titi o n e r d e m o n strat es th at th e all eged in eff e ctivenes s s o un d e rmin ed th e truth- de t e rmi ni ng process th at n o reliab le - - ~ 85 6 A. 2 d 8 0 6 , 812 n.S ( 2004 ) , state d as fo ll ows : T h e P e n n s ylv an ia S up re m e C ou rt , i n C om mo n wea lt h v. D 'A ma t

o, 5 7 9 Pa
. 49 0 , c ou ns e l' s In e ffe ctive n ess. th e th ird r equ ir em e n t, nam e ly, wh e th e r th e p e titio n e r s u ffere d pre j u d ice b e cau se of h is a cti o n o r in actio n . T hi s r e qu ires th e Co u rt to co n si d e r, fo r p u rpose s of thi s cl aim, onl y argum e n t ha s m eri t, and se c o nd, th at cou n se l (Fu ch e l) ha d n o r easo nab l e s trat egic b as i s fo r bur den o f proof r e qu ir e me n ts ar e m e t b y th i s cl aim, n am el y, fi r st, th at th e unde rlyin g All o f th ese fa ct ors l ea d the Court t o th e c o nclu s i o n th at th e fir s t two pro n gs of th e PC RA b ecau s e of Fuc h e l' s n eg li g e n ce , and th at th e d efe nd ant actu ally fil e d hi s o wn PC RA p etitio n . S u p e ri o r C o urt , th at n ew co un se l h a d to b e appo i nt e d t o h an dl e the app e al and th e PC RA · fil e hi s own app e al aft e r convicti o n, th at att o rn e y Fuch e l mi sse d filin g d ea dlin e s wi th th e from that po i nt fo rw ar d a s h os til e . It mu s t al so b e r e m e mb e r ~ d th at th e de fe nd ant had t o i n sti g ator . T h is p arale g al de s crib ed th e re l ation s hip b e tw e en Fu c h e l and the de fe nd ant def e nd an t gr abbed h e r arm to p r e ve n t h er from falling wh il e Fu c h e l wa s cle arly th e co n firm ed, to th e l ett er , th e de fen dant' s ve rs ion o f th e ev e n ts , spe ci fic ally testifying that th e th e Court w as exp e cti ng to h e ar h e r c o n fi rm Fu c h e l ' s v er s i o n of th e e ve n ts . In s t ea d, s h e C o mm o nwe al th c all e d th e p ar al e gal (Di o n na Ste e le) to the s tan d duri ng th e P CRA hearin g, wa s mere ly tryi n g t o as s i s t the p arale g al w ho w a s kno cked b a ckw ard
. Wh e n th e Fu c h e l w a s the i n sti g at or, that Fu c h e l g ot i n h is ( defend ant's ) fac e and that h e ( defe nd ant) . c ont es te d thi s an d gave a di ffe re n t v e r s i o n o f th e ev e n ts . T he de fe nd ant te s tified that b ecame h o sti le , atta c ke d hi m an d kno c ke d hi s p ar al egal to th e gr oun d
. T h e d efen d ant Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM42 2 The Co u rt al so n otes that e v e n th. o u gh th ese matters w ere n ot covere d in c r oss -examinati on of th e witn esses , o th er matters w ere cove red, su c h as th e in c arcerated status of som e of th e witne sses an d drug se ll in g or depend e ncy status o f others that cas t th em in an unfavorab l e li gh t i n the jury ' s e yes and th ereb y call ed !h e ir c re di b ili ty into questi o n . t o work o n that d ate. D efendan t also st at ed th at h e was wat c hin g a hockey game wi th hi s at w o rk. V id e o ev id e n c e from th e vic tim ' s emp lo y er cl earl y s h o w e d that th e victim n eve r cam e th e v i ctim t o work on th e nigh t o f th e i n c iden t an d th en w en t ba c k to p i c k h er u p , b ut s h e was no t pro vi d e q u as i- alibi evi d ence t o exo n e rat e hims el f
. Th e de f endant spec i fical l y s tat ed th at h e t o ok t estimo n y re fle c t s th at de fen d ant att emp t ed t o e x p l ain a w ay his invo lv emen t in thi s m atter and Detec tiv es P atrick and C lem e n ts th at i s d etai l ed at l ength at p a g es 11-1 3 of this Opini o n . That F o r examp l e, th e r e w as t es ti mo n y r e g ar d ing d efe n dant's stat e ment t o Beave r Co un ty l a c k o f cro ss - examin ati o n . . H owev er, ther e was s ignifi can t o th er e v i d ence a gai ns t th e d e fen dant th at was n o t affected b y thi s evid ence agains t de fe n d an t, this cl aim w ou ld sure l y b e me rit o riou s an d r es ult in a n e w trial
. p rior co n victio n s , relat es o nly to admi s sions al le g edl y mad e b y th e defend an t and hi s us e o f th e
v i c ti m 's c r e d i t/d ebit c ar d for p urposes of furth e ring h i s dru g h ab i t.2 If th is was th e ext ent of th e Co mm o nwealth ' s c ase a g ains t him
. Th e failur e t o c r oss - examin e these witn es ses , wi th r egard to While defend ant' s cl ai m d oc s h ave me rit, i t only r e lat es to a po rtion o f th e reliable adj u di catio n o f gu ilt or i nn oce n ce co u l d h ave taken pla ce . 

### r co uns e l' s ineff e c tiv e n e s s so un d ermin e d the tru th -d e t ermin ing pr o c es s i n this case that no 13 , 724 A. 2 d 3 26 , 33 3 (1 999)
. Th u s, the Co urt must det ermin e , un d er thi s stan dard, wh e ther 

### Pa 3 12, , 7 80 A
. 2d 64 9 , 6 5 2 ( 2001) ; and Co mm o n w e a lt h v . K im b all , 555 Pa
. 2 99 , 3 1 2 - See al s o, Com m o n wea lth v . Mill e r, 8 19 A
. 2d 504 , 517 (Pa. 2 01 2); Co mm o nw e alth v . Till ey, 566

ad j u dicati o n o f gu il t or inn o c e n ce co u ld h ave take n p l a ce, 

## see 4 2 Pa
. C.S
. § 954 3 (a)(ii), in oth e r words, th at th ere i s a rea so n able p robabili ty that, but fo r co un s el's a ct o r o mi ssio n , th e o utcom e of the pr oce edin g w o u ld hav e be e n di ff e re nt Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM43 1 Th e Co urt is c ognizan t o f the fac t that th e record re fl ec ts that defe n dant fil ed his o wn appeal (Docke t Entty No
. 5 7); that after th e ap peal w as tiled. d e fens e counsel (/Fu c heO failed to file a bri e f o n d e fen dan t ' s behalf and was admo nish ed by the Pennsyl v ania Superior Co urt for fail ure to file sai d brief in an Orde r o f J une 2 3, 2011 and g i ve n 30 a ddi ti o nal days to fil e the bri ef, bu t s till fail ed to file a bri ef (Docke t E ntry No
. 77) ; and that failure to fi le an appeal o r an appe ll at e b ri e f c o nstitu t es abandonm en t o f counse l and, th ere f ore , per se , in e ffecti veness . Com monw ea lth v . Bri ll

, 83 A. 2 d 198 , 2 0 3 (Pa. Su per. 20 13) , cllin g Co mm o nw e alth v . Burkett, 5 A. 3d 1260, 12 77 (P a. S uper . 2 0 10 )
. Howev er , Fu c hc l was re m oved from th e case and new c o unse l was appoint ed. This n ew co unse l pursu ed the appeal with the S upe ri or C ou rt, filed a brief and requ es t ed allo wance of appeal from the Pennsylvani a S upre m e Court, th ereby alle v i ating th e prejud ice
. Moreo v er, defendant allu ded t o the d e fi cie n cies on th e last p ag e (p. 44) o f his original PC RA m otio n, but p resented n o evi de nce regarding th is at th e Augus t, 2 0 14 hearin g other than to obtain an admiss io n fro m Fu ch el that b e (Fu c h el ) failed to fil e th e appe ll ate b ri e f. i n the Fac t s secti on of this Opinion between p a g es 2 and 20 , clearly over co m es any claim of pr e judice mad e by the d e fendant in th i s cl aim of hi s petition
. 3 The Court , in its di scr e tion, does This evidence, wh en coupled with an abundance of other circumstantial e vidence recited died as a result of st ab w ounds to the n ec k
. . J ap p ar ently the murder weapon . Dr'. J am es Smith, a forensic pathologist, t es tified that the victim

the d ef endant as a poten tial contributor of bl o od found on a kn i fe in th e kitchen, which was as a pot e nti al contributo r to a blood stain found on th e d e f e n dan t's shoe s an d c ould not e xclude Mo s t importantly, a DNA e xaminati on of bl oo d found on the defendant 's blu e jeans

m at ched the victim's blood
. That same DNA an aly s is could n o t e x clude the blood of the vi c tim w ould h ave been killed. l ocations, placed th e def e ndant in the area of the v ic tim's re si denc e during the hours wh e n s he th e d e fendant fr om witness es and vid eo di s pl ays o f the defendant at b ank , ATM and retail · A s s tated at page 16 of thi s Opinion, this inform ation , togeth er w i th th e known observ ation s of t e lep h one cal ls, in chr o nolo gi caJ order, that are detailed at pages 13 through 16 o f thi s Opinion
. Moreover, the Comm o nwealth pr es ented reco r ds of A TM tran s a c tion s and cellular that d at e. directly c o ntradic t ed by the girlfriend who denied that she ever went to the victim 's res i den c e on girlfriend at the victim' s re s id en ce on th e night in qu es ti on . Thi s portion of the statem e nt was Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM44 ,_, = 

### - -= co 2: 

### -< ~ --i < 

## z.fE . .: . .,; :I: ~ :..;,i co rrl ~a: 

# .. ~~ C)~ <,

~ ~j 

# - fTl;o -0 a

. ::_ ~ c: ~ ::, 0 .LJ 

## c: 

# -<~ en ~ :::0 (/) --i

· '-'- O'\ , >- tA


## - :r e .. (/) 

# .- >- :x::: > J Z

.> Z 

## §ffi 0 

# t1J LU :z:: 

# ~ d ~ 

### a:/l.. BY THE COURT: O r der will be entered
. Fo r the foregoing reasons, defendan t's PCRA Petitio n wi ll be den i ed
. An appropriat e 

### CO N C L US IO N an d , therefore, denies the petition o n the basis of th i s claim. determining process that no reliab l e ad j udi cation o f guil t o r innocence could have taken p l ace not be l ieve that the alleged ineffectiveness by this issue, alone, so undermined the truthCirculated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM