J-S52021-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 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 an 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 1475 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’ Bureau, 

[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 

sentence 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 residence 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 inform 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 personal 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 years 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, [Appellant] 

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 Township 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] 

reported 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] 

had 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 taken 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 through 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 as 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 the [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. During 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 and 

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 things 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 

residence. 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 if 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 to 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 represented 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 provided 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 branch 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 of 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 

opinion, 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 opined 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 shoes 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 by 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] advised 

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 for 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 

subsequently 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 Mr. 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 called 

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. Campbell, 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 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 
J-S52021-15

- 9 -

County Detectives Timothy Staub, Kim Clements, 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. Rankin 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 

employment 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 out 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. [Appellant] 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 also 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 informed 

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. [Appellant] 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 11th 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 into 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 service 

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 remained 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 not 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 separate 

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 acquired 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 towers 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 [Appellant] 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/debit 

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 blood 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 crime 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 and 

[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 artery 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 her 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 blade 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, [Appellant] 

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 partying 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 approximately 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 provided 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 pulled 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 [Appellant].

[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. Campbell 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, fabricated 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 for 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 coworkers 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, while 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, chaching[.”] Ms. Barnes 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 death. 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.

Mr. 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 abused 

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., Esquire [(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 this 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] complained 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 

information 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 Commonwealth 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/debit [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 [Appellant] 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 access 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 convictions 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 trial 

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 statements 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, according 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 said 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 hearing, [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.] Valentine 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 against 

[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 dismissed. . . . 

[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 residence 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 witness, 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 further 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 

conviction 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.] Brown 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 use 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 that 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 [believed] 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 these 

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 who 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 before 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 the 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 the 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 not 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 the 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 process 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 

arraignment.

[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 because [Attorney 

Fuchel] neglected to timely file the appeal. No postsentence 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 because 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] testified that he 

never said he would perjure himself. According to 

[Appellant], he [] requested that [Attorney Fuchel] crossexamine [Mr.] Valentine with impeachment material, and 

[Attorney Fuchel] responded that he did not want to 

complicate the case. [Appellant] 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 that [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 [Appellant] 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 requested 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 Robert 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 right 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 Fuchel] 

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. [Appellant] 

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 the 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 

Beaver 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 prior 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 wife 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 Beaver 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 through 

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 

information 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 Clements. [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] Clements [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.] Valentine 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 number 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 one 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 yelling 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 do 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 startled 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 clearly 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 crossexamination 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 discovery 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 current 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 

[Appellant], 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 tasked 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 

Amendment 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 the 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 

any 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: 11/16/2015
the Jury was selected, the case proceeded to trial, and the jury convicted defendant of first 

,. 

Senior Judge of this Court, with jury selection taking place on Monday, July 26, 2010. After 

The case was scheduled for a jury trial before the Honorable John Dohanlch, now 

homlclde. 

Borough Police and the Beaver County Detectives' Bureau, the defendant was charged with 

Borough, Beaver County, Pennsylvania. An autopsy determined that Grosskopf died due to 

, nulttple stab wounds to the head and neck areas. After· an investigation by the Fceedon 

Elizabeth Grosskopf, was fo1.uh.i dead in her residence at 1475 Fifth Avenue Freedom 

the late evening hours of May 1?. or early morning hours of May 13, ~009. Tie vie 11r., 

h.:11 an incident that occurred In Freedom Borough, Beaver County, Pennsylvania, in either 

· assistance of the Beaver County District Attorney Detectives Bureau. The charges stein 

charge of homicide by the Freedom Borough Police Department in conjunction with the 

On June 17, 2009, the defendant, Benjamin J. Dennerlein, was charged with a general 

INTRODUCTION 

M.EMQRANDUM OPlN.ID.N 

ROSS, J. November \<3, , 2014 

BENJAMIN J. DENNERLEIN 

v. No. 1592 of2009 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANlA 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BEA VER COUNTY 

PENNSYLVANIA 

CRIMINAL DIVISION 

Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM
2 

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 

reasons 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 Supreme 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 imprisonment without parole. 

degree murder on August 3, 2010. On September 29, 2010, Judge Dohanich sentenced the 

Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM
3 

a personal checking/credit/debit account with the Northern Lights branch of ESB Bank 

Erie. They discussed the uses to which she could put the funds. Ms. Grosskopf maintained 

$31,128.14, representing her share of the proceeds from the sa1e of her parents' cottage In 

telephoned to inform him that on May 7, 2009, she had received and deposited the sum of 

Mr. Campbell's last contact with the victim occurred on May 8, 2009, when she 

culminated in their marriage in October, 2008. 

Campbell and Ms. Babich commenced their relat1onship in December, 2007, which 

to commence a live-In relationship with his current wife, Karen Otrhalik Babich. Mr. 

together for approximately ten years until May, 2008, when Mr. Campbell left the residence 

; tenants with the right of survivorship. The victim and Mr. Campbell previously lived 

• transferred the title by deed dated February 28, 2008, to herself and Mr. Campbell, as joint 

name because of Mr. Campbell's unstable financial condition. Subsequently, Ms. Grosskopf 

: 2003, subject to a mortgage; however, the property was titled solely in Ms. Grosskopf s 

· prone to falling on occasion. Ms. Grosskopf and Mr. Campbell purchased the residence In 

. health, suffering from various medical conditions which caused her to be unsteady and 

'whom she maintained a friendly relationship. Ms. Grosskopf was a frail woman In poor 

1 Beaver County, in a residence owned by her and Robert Campbell, a former paramour, with 

The victim, Elizabeth Grosskopf, age 54, resided at 1475 Fifth Avenue, Freedom, 

[following pages. 

.captured and summarized the facts established, and the Court reiterates those facts In the 

i 

:reviewed the transcripts of the trial and believes that Judge Dohanich has accurately 

i 

opinton, Judge Dohanich recited the facts established 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 AM
4 

defendant had been stealing from her and using her credit/debit card to purchase items. 

her death, Ms. Grosskopf reported to one of her co-workers, Nancy Pranskey, that the 

work that day, which was unlike her because she was a reliable employee. Shortly before 

however, she did not appear for work nor call to indicate that she would not be present for 

The victim was scheduled to work on May 12, 2009, from 11:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M.; 

Grosskopf alive. 

work day. Mr. McMorris was the last person other than the perpetrator to see Ms. 

the same day as she drove by his home on the way to her residence after completing her 

Mart Mr. McMorris subsequently observed the victim between 8:40 P.M. and 8:50 P.M. on 

· was observed at work by her neighbor, Dwight McMorris, while he was shopping at Wal· 

Wal-Mart Ms. Grosskopf last worked on May 11, 2009, from 11 :00 A.M. until 8:00 P.M. and 

Recycling as a salesperson from 2008 through May 13, 2009. 

. paying rent in the amount of $50.00 per week. The defendant was employed at Crow's Run 

I 

·l 

I 

I 

i Prior to her death, the victim was employed as a cashier at the Center Township . 

• and continuing until the time of her death, the defendant resided at the victim's home, 

individuals were users of and smoked cocaine together on occasion. In December, 2008, 

· Grosskopf from time to time when he was in need of a temporary residence. All three 

maintained a friendly relationship, and the defendant resided with Mr. Campbell and Ms. 

· : the instant case. Upon release from incarceration, Mr. Campbell and the defendant 

victim's death while both were inmates in the Beaver County Jail for reasons unrelated to · 

• 24-hour period. 

Mr. Campbell was introduced to the defendant approximately four years prior to the 

which she opened May 19, 1997. The account was limited to withdrawals of $510.00 per 

Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM
~-- 

5 

. 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. 

The defendant also did not appear at his place of employment on May 12, 2009, and 

.termmated 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. The defendant had been a good employee 

i 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 the defendant's decline in 

, performance. The defendant'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 the 

· defendant at his place of employment Not locating him at work, Mr. Campbell proceeded 

. to the victim's residence and found the defendant present Mr. Campbell noted that the 

, defendant appeared to be under the Influence of drugs. When Mr. Campbell inquired of the 

. defendant as to the whereabouts of the victim, the defendant replied that he had taken 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 through the house 

.. by the defendant When looking into the victim's bedroom, Mr. Campbell observed that the 

bed had been made, which was unusual because the victim was a poor housekeeper and 

never made the bed. The defendant was directly behind Mr. Campbell as he was in the 

doorway to the victim's bedroom. The defendant and Mr. Campbell became involved in a 

heated argument over the defendant not working to pay rent to the victim and his drug use. 

Mr. Campbell informed the defendant that he would return to the residence between 8:30 

Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM
6 

that she provide transportation to the motel. Jennifer Bums and Bryan Sil berger retrieved 

her to join him in smoking crack cocaine. Ms. Rankin telephoned Jennifer Bums, requesting 

of the Beaver Falls Motel in Beaver Falls, following which he contacted Laura Rankin asking 

On May 13, 2009, at approximately 12:26 A.M., the defendant checked into Room 12 

final time at approximately 12:00 A.M, returned to their residence and retired for the night 

occasions and did not find anyone or the victim's automobile at the home. They left for the 

_ Mr.- Campbell and his wife left and returned to the victim's residence on two additional 

Baden police would be interested In Mr. Campbell's use of marijuana. During the evening. 

: He received no responses, except that the defendant sent a text message advising that the 

: the victim by telephone and through text messages indicating his desire to speak to them. 

• Campbell attempted on 30 occasions to reach the defendant and on 17 occasions to contact 

In the area. Throughout the evening and into the early morning hours of May 13, 2009, Mr. 

; 

! returned to the victim's residence and found no one present The victim's vehicle was not 

purchased from the defendant and which were not appropriate for his vehicle. 

: games, movies and an electric can opener, to reimburse Mr. Price for tires that he 

At between 8:30 P.M. and 9:00 P.M. on May 12, 2009, Mr. Campbell and his wife 

! Chippewa Township K-Mart between 6:51 P.M. and 7:09 P.M. and proceeded to the home of 

i Gregory 'Wimpy" Price and Wendy McCoy to deliver items to Mr. Price, including video 

; card, made a balance inquiry at ESB Bank located at 921 Third Avenue in New Brighton. 

; The defendant, utilizing the victim's credit/debit card, purchased various items at the 

Later in the same day at 3:25 P.M., the defendant, using the victim's credit/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 AM
7 

· 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. Burns, and Patrick Brown, a supplier of 

crack cocaine for the defendant, also appeared at the motel. Mr. Brown provided the 

: cocaine to the defendant The defendant, when asked the reason for being in possession of 

; the victim's vehicle, informed Ms. Rankin that the victim was away on vacation visiting her 

niece in Maryland or Virginia. The defendant told Mr. Sil berger that the victim was away in 

Maryland to visit her brother for a week The defendant, 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 victim's bank account of $29,712.14. The defendant and the other 

· individuals smoked crack cocaine throughout the early morning hours of May 13, 2010, 

until approximately 5:00 A.M. During that time, the defendant and Ms. Rankin left the 

motel and proceeded to two convenience stores to purchase Items and attempted to obtain 

funds using the victim's credit/debit card. At one point in time, the defendant advised Ms. 

Rankin that he was using the victim's credit/debit card, showed her the balance in the 

account and stated to her, "stick with me and good things will happen". 

Mr. Campbell, accompanied by two friends, Martin Costanza and Justin Hertnecky, 

proceeded to the victim's residence on May 13, 2009, between 8:30 A.M. and 9:00 A.M. No 

one was present and the victim's car was not at the residence. The three of them gathered 

the defendant's belongings, placed them in garbage bags and stored the bags in the garage 

of the residence. Mr. Campbell opened the victim's bedroom door and found the bed in the 

same condition as the day before, as if it had not been disturbed. They then left the 

Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM
8 

. ( 

residence and returned to Mr. Campbell's house for the balance of the morning. Mr. 

.Carnpbell's intention was to evict the defendant 

After leaving the motel and driving his friends home, the defendant claimed to have 

returned to the victim'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, the defendant presented a check made payable on the victim's 

: account to himself in the amount of $1,000.00 at the ESB Bank in Beaver Falls. The memo 

portion of the check indicated the words "roof /porch". The defendant explained that he 

' had performed work for the victim and the check represented payment Ms. Celeste, the 

. victim's next door neighbor, Indicated that no recent work had been done on the· house. 

: The bank representative requested identification from the defendant, since he did not have 

: an account with the bank, and he provided 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 

victim. The Beaver Falls branch manager also placed two telephone calls to the victim's 

residence and the telephone was not answered on either occasion. Mer being unable to 

verify the defendant's correct address and telephone number or the victim's signature, the 

bank refused to cash the check and returned the check to the defendant 

· Trooper Robert Negherborn, a forensic document examiner with the Pennsylvania 

State Police Crime Laboratory, recovered from the face of the subsequent check in the 

victim's checkbook the Impression of the writing depicting the text of the previous check 

payable to the defendant, Including the authorizing signature. He was further provided 

with handwriting samples of the victim and the defendant Although not Issuing a 

Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM
'II. - 

9 

Campbell, who subsequently arrived and Informed Mr. Carter that he was In possession of 

the house by way of a window and was unable to locate the remote control while 

continuing to speak to the defendant on the telephone. Mr. Carter then telephoned Mr. 

remote control for the garage door. At the direction of the defendant, Mr. Carter entered 

call, at which time the defendant instructed Mr. Carter to enter the home to obtain the 

Carter waited. When the defendant failed to appear, Mr. Carter made a second telephone 

The defendant advised Mr. Carter that he would not arrive for a period of time, and Mr. 

informing him that he was at the residence desiring to retrieve the vehicle from the garage. 

$500.00 for the purchase of an automobile from the defendant, telephoned the defendant 

At approximately 1:00 P.M., Kelly Carter, who had previously made payment of 

credit/debit card and was refused. 

. credit/debit card. He also attempted to buy tennis shoes for Mr. Price using the victim's 

.· met Mr. Price while at the Beaver Valley Mall and purchased other items withthe victim's 

, credit/debit card and was refused. The defendant was accompanied by Ms. Rankin and 

A short time later he attempted to return the tennis shoes for a cash refund without the 

at the Shoe Department Store at the Beaver Valley Mall using the victim's credit/debit card. 

At approximately 2:00 P.M. on May 13, 2009, the defendant purchased tennis shoes 

check. 

.• defendant wrote the entries on the check, or that the defendant wrote the signature on the 

• opined that there were no significant similarities to indicate that the victim or the 

: strong probability that the signature on the check was not that of the victim. He further 

I 

conclusive opinion, Trooper Negherborn testified that in comparing the writing on the 

I check with the samples of the handwriting of the victim and the defendant, there was a 

./ 

Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM
lO 

· 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 observe 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 AM
11 

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 space at the Beaver Valley Mall. 

The defendant stated to Ms. 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 AM
12 

made and did not appear to have been slept in. The defendant then proceeded to the 

May 13, 2009. He 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 victim. He found that her bed was 

Ms. Rankin and her friends. They all remained at the motel into the early morning hours of 

cocaine from Mr. Price and checked into the Beaver Falls Motel to smoke crack cocaine with 

disclosed that the defendant did not appear at the relevant time. He obtained crack 

2009, and video footage of the entrance and the customer service area of Wal-Mart 

to call Ms. Grosskopf and received no reply. The victim did not report for work on May 12, 

and was told that she was not at work all day. He also advised the detectives that he tried 

pick up Ms. Grosskopf, and when she did not come out to the vehicle, he went into the store 

cocaine binge. He stated that he returned to Wal-Mart between 8:00 P.M. and 8:30 P.M. to 

Campbell, he advised that he left the residence, ran a few more errands and went on a crack 

contact with Mr. Campbell and a verbal argument ensued. Mer the disagreement with Mr. 

10:00 A.M., attended to several errands and returned to the residence, when he made 

• stated that on May 12, 2009, he drove the victim to work at Wal-Mart at approxJmately 

. P.M. near the end ofthe hockey game, when she was at her own residence. The defendant 

; 11th and that the two of them had exchanged text messages between 9:23 P.M. and 10:07 

i 

i 

i 

I 

to the statement made by Ms. Cantella that she was not at the victim's residence on May 

i 

I 

I : departed after the hockey game to return to her residence. This information was contrary 

came home from work during the hockey game. According to the defendant, Ms. Cantella 

, PenguinsjWashington Capitals hockey game. The defendant further advised that the victim 

; and his girlfriend, Colleen Cantella, were at the victim's residence viewing the Pittsburgh 

; death and showed no emotion. He indicated that in the evening hours of May 11, 2009, he 

Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM
13 

May9,2009: 

order was outlined by Detective Chamberlain as follows: 

and in the trash bin at the Beaver Falls Motel. A summary of these records in chronological 

(ATM) withdrawals from the victim's account In the vehicles of the victim and Ms. Rankin 

May 14, 2009, and located various receipts for purchases and automatic teller machine 

Prosecutors acquired the victim's bank records for the period from May 1, 2009, 

through May 31, 2009, the telephone records of the defendant from May 8, 2009, through 

the victim's vehicle, which was in the possession of the defendant. 

Identification card, driver's license, checkbook and cellular telephones were all located In 

Is convince one person" that he did not commit the offense. The victim's purse.Wal-Mart 

if they were going to arrest him for murder to do so. He further stated that "all I have to do 

interview, which lasted approximately one hour, the defendant stated to the detectives that 

have pennission from the victim to use the credit/debit card. Near the conclusion of the 

information, the defendant informed the detectives that he had taken the credit/debit card 

· , out of the victim's purse and placed the purse in the automobile. The defendant claimed to 

. kitchen of the home and subsequently found it in the victim's vehicle. Upon receiving this 

the kitchen of the residence. The detectives were unable to locate the victim's purse ln the 

defendant related that he obtained the credit/debit card from the victim's purse located in 

including the victim's personal identification number (P.I.N.) to access the account The 

-1 

I 

! 

I 

I 

defendant advised that he had the information regarding the victim's credit/debit card, 

at two separate ret.ail locations using the victim's credit/debit card and was rejected. The 

: payment for cocaine previously supplied by Mr. Price. The defendant attempted purchases 

Beaver Valley Mall where he met Mr. Price and offered to purchase tennis shoes for him as 

Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM
14 

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 withdrawal, 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 AM
15 

May 13, 2009: 

1. 12:01 AM. - $303.00 ATM withdrawal, Beaver Falls 

· 2. 12:02 AM. -$203.00 ATM withdrawal, Beaver Falls 

3. 12:02 A.M. - Six unanswered telephone calls from Robert Campbell to defendant 

4. 12:12 AM. - Telephone call from defendant to Laura Rankin 

5. 3:06:17 A.M. - $22.59 transaction at Sheetz, Beaver Falls 

6. 4:11 A.M. - $101.50 Mac machine transaction, Beaver Falls 

7. 4:14 A.M. • $5.69 Mac machine transaction, Beaver Falls (defendant displayed on 

video) 

8. 5:03 AM. - Text message from defendant to Patrick Brown stating "Need 150" 

(meaning defendant needed $150.00 worth of crack cocaine) 

9. 6: 10 AM. - $6.33 transaction at East Rochester GetGo 

10. 6:18 AM. - Telephone call from defendant to Patrick Brown 

11. 11:42 AM. - Text message from Patrick Drown to defendant stating "Still need it?" 

12. 1:06 P.M. -Telephone call from Kelly Carter to defendant 

13. 1:30 P.M. - Defendant attempts to cash victim's check at ESB Bank, Deaver Falls 

14. 1:36 P.M. - Telephone call from Kelly Carter to defendant 

15. 1:50 P.M. - $200.00 ATM rejected withdrawal, ESB Bank, New Brighton 

18. 

16. 

11. 

:9. 

'10. 

1:04:11 AM. - $200.00 ATM withdrawal, ESB Bank, New Brighton 

1:04:28 AM. - $200.00 ATM withdrawal, ESB Bank, New Brighton 

1:07 AM. - Telephone call from defendant to Gregory Price 

. 3:15 AM. - Text message from Patrick Brown to defendant stating "Phone was dead, 

what's up" 

8:08 AM. - Telephone call from defendant to Gregory Price 

12:01:36 P.M. - $103.00 ATM withdrawal, Huntington Bank, Cranberry (defendant 

displayed alone in the victim's vehicle on video) 

12:02 P.M. - $103.00 ATM rejected withdrawal, Huntington Bank, Cranberry 

(defendant displayed alone in the victim's vehicle on video) 

3:24 P.M. · $103.00 ATM rejected withdrawal, Huntington Bank, New Brighton 

(defendant displayed on video) 

3:25 P.M. - ATM balance inquiry, Huntington Bank, New Brighton, showing a 

balance of$28,689.42 (defendant displayed on video) 

6:33 P.M. • $75.00 ATM/Mac machine withdrawal, Beaver Falls 

6:51 P.M. - Purchase by defendant using victim's credit/debit card at Chippewa K· 

Mart in the amount of$83.59 (defendant displayed on video) 

7:06 P.M. - Purchase by defendant using victim's credit/debit card at Chippewa KMart in the amount of$79.48 (defendant displayed on video) 

7:09 P.M. - Purchase by defendant using victim's credit/debit card at Chippewa KMart in the amount of $105.77 (defendant displayed on video) 

7:24 P.M. - Text message from Patrick Drown to defendant stating "Phone was dead, 

what's up" 

11:47 P.M. • $303.00 ATM rejected withdrawal, Beaver Falls (defendant displayed 

on video with victim's vehicle in background) 

5. 

6. 

-7. 

8. 

. 19. 

17. 

.14. 

15. 

,12. 

i13. 

Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM
16 

supervisor in the DNA section, conducted DNA testing on the swabs of the defendant's blue 

submission to the DNA section of the crime laboratory. Michael Biondi, a forensic scientist 

swabs of the blood on the defendant's jeans, tennis shoes and the steak knife for 

of blood. Ms. Badger prepared samples of dried blood of the victim and the defendant and 

kitchen sink of the victim's residence submitted to the crime laboratory disclosed evidence 

testing for blood. In addition, examination of the handle of a steak knife found in the 

of the defendant's left athletic shoe, but the sample was insufficient for a confirmatory 

jeans consisted of blood. She further detected the presence of blood on the eyelet of the toe 

• determined that two stains on the outside seam of the lower leg of the defendant's blue 

Crime Laboratory for analysis. Jennifer Badger, a forensic scientist in the serology section, 

•· together with the defendant's blue jeans, were delivered to the Pennsylvania State Police 

revealed possible blood stains. Samples of the blood of the victim and the defendant, 

. the victim's credit/debit card. 

killed and at the various locations at which he made ATM withdrawals and purchases using 

· defendant in the area of the victim's residence 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 approximate location of the defendant when he was using his cellular 

; telephone. This Information, together with the known observations of the defendant 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 Wireless 

16. 1:51 P.M. - Balance inquiry, ESB Bank, New Brighton, showing balance of 

$27,872.06 

17. 2:31 P.M. - Purchase by defendant using victim's credit/debit card at the Shoe 

Department, Beaver Valley Mall, in the amount of $69.99. 

Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM
17 

i 

! 

for the crime. In a second conversation with Mr. Sarver, the defendant queried as to why 

that he had killed Ms. Grosskopf and intended to attempt to place blame on Mr. Campbell 

purchased marijuana in the past Mr. Sarver related that the defendant admitted to him 

Beaver County Jail. Mr. Sarver also was familiar with Mr. Campbell from whom he had 

I 

I 

James Sarver met the defendant on May 15, 2009, while both were inmates in the 

.death was homicide. 

from the left through the right side of the neck. Dr. Smith estimated that the blade of the 

i 

iknife was approximately one-half inch in width and three inches in length. The manner of i 

was an indication the victim was held down and was struck w1th such force as to penetrate 

ward off her attacker. He testified that the concentration of the wounds in the neck area 

· defensive wounds on the victim's hands and fingers indicating that the victim attempted to 

. knife wounds, 34 of which were located in the left neck region. Dr. Smith further described 

: 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 artery and the right jugular vein. He noted a total of 46 

· greenish discoloration of the body, signifying the first sign of decomposition, the victim's 

Dr. James Smith, a forensic pathologist, determined that due to observing the 

appeared DNA types from two unidentified individuals. 

could not be excluded as a contributor for the blood on the knife, because there also 

contributor as to the knife found In the kitchen sink, while the DNA profile of the defendant 

the blood stain from the defendant's shoe. The DNA profile of the victim was excluded as a 

profiles of the victim and the defendant could not be excluded as potential contributors of 

jeans and determined that the blood on the jeans matched the victim's blood. The DNA 

Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM
I ! . 

I 

I 

·I 

18 

the house and into Ms. Babich's residence, indicating that she desired to title the home In 

Mr. Campbell testified that the victim called him shortly after he had moved out of 

victim and that he had a financial motive for killing her. 

Campbell by attempting to demonstrate that he had been physically abusive toward the 

The defense presented evidence in an effort to place culpability for the crime on Mr. 

homicide until his conversation with the defendant 

I. 

' ' 

the police based upon the defendant's description. Mr. Valentine had been unaware of the 

Mr. Valentine, who had never been to the residence, drew a diagram of the residence for 

bed and complained that Mr. Campbell had pulled the blanket away exposing the blood. 

The defendant further described the placement of a tan blanket covering the blood on the 

detailing the location of the bedrooms and the doorways from each bedroom to the attic. 

residence. The defendant also outlined the layout of the house and provided a diagram 

placed her body in the stairway to the attic between the two bedrooms in the victim's 

defendant acknowledged that he had killed the victim, wrapped her in a blue blanket and 

incarceration while working at Crow's Run Recycling. Mr. Valentine stated that the 

in which he indicated that he had become acquainted with the defendant prior to their 

• approximately two weeks. On May 18, 2009, Mr. Valentine provided a statement to police 

I 

1 · i to the main floor of the house. 

Zack Valentine was the defendant's cellmate at the Beaver County Jail for 

Sarver testified that he had previously been a visitor at the victim's residence, limited only 

credit/debit card and confirmed that he went partying and shopping after the killing. Mr. 

the pool of blood. The defendant informed 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
--··· .,. _ 

19 

both of their names. Ms. Babich, who was a mortgage processor and notary public, 

. facilitated the transfer by having the deed prepared, notarizing Ms. Grosskopf'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 victim, observed a black 

· eye on the victim on one occasion and her leg to be injured at a subsequent meeting, both 

; injuries which the victim attributed to the defendant When Ms. Celeste confronted the 

· defendant regarding the Incidents, he apologized for his actions. He further explained that 

the black eye occurred when he became angry with the victim for refusing to eat dinner he 

· had prepared and he had struck the victim with the food plate. The leg Injury resulted from 

Mr. Campbell accidently pulling a loose kitchen cabinet from Its hinges causing it to strike 

the victim. 

Stacie Delp, Kristine Ramer and Nancy Pranskey, all co-workers of the victim, noted 

black eyes on the victim, with Ms. Delp also observing the injured leg. Only Ms. Pranskey 

testified that the victim told her that the injuries were inflicted by Mr. Campbell. 

On the evening of May 9, 2009, while 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, "chaching, cha-chlng". Ms. Barnes admitted to being unaware of the meaning of Mr. Campbell's 

remarks. 

Approximately two to three months following the victim's death, Mr. Campbell was 

advised by correspondence from Wal-Mart, the victim's employer, that he was the 

beneficiary of the victim's retirement account in the amount of$1,893.34 and life insurance 

Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM
20 

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, since 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 injuries sustained by falling. 

; Heritage Valley-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 AM
21 

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 AM
22 

The first issue raised by defendant is the failure to use prior convictions and other 

information for purposes of impeaching key Commonwealth witnesses. Counsel for 

· Dennerlein at the PCRA hearing initially questioned Fuchel about a Commonwealth witness 

: by the name of Laura Rankin. Rankin had, and testified to, information regarding defendant 

: using the victim's credit/debit to make bank withdrawals. Fuchel testified that it was his 

· theory that Robert Campbell, who was a former boyfriend of the victim, committed the 

murder. Fuchel continued by stating that he believed that Rankin was actually a helpful 

• witness to the defense because she also had information that the defendant used the 

. victim's credit/debit card not only at and shortly after the time of the murder, but also 

• prior to that time. Rankin also testified that defendant had the PIN for the credit card 

further confirming. according to Fuchel, that her testimony would actually indicate that 

· defendant did not just use the credit card after the murder, but also before the murder 

showing his consented-to access to the card. Fuchel thought this was beneficial testimony 

and pointed to Volume IV of the trial transcript, page 30, line 25, through page 341, lines 1· 

· . 3. Defense counsel at the PCRA hearing pointed out and entered exhibits to confirm that 

Rankin had convictions for retail theft, trademark counterfeiting and theft by unlawful 

taking, all of which were crimes of crfmen falsi. The Commonwealth confirmed, on cross· 

examination, that Fuchel did not want to impeach Rankin because she was actually 

favorable to defendant's position In this case. However, defense counsel noted for the Court 

that at Volume IV, page 341 of the trial transcript, Fuchel cross-examined 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 crimes of crimen falsi. 

Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM
23 

The second Commonwealth witness who had prior criminal convictions was 

. Zachary Valentine. Valentine was defendant's cell mate at the Beaver County Jail, and 

' Valentine testified at trial regarding defendant's admissions about his (defendant's) 

involvement in the killing. 

Fuchel testified that he discussed Valentine with Dennerlein, and according to 

, Fuchel, defendant Dennerlein confirmed that some of the statements that Valentine made 

, in a report of interview were true. Fuchel claims that he continuously cautioned Dennerlein 

not to have conversations with Valentine. Dennerlein never admitted his guilt to Fuchel, 

but, according to Fuchel, the defendant did confirm some of the things that Valentine said. 

Interestingly and bewildering to the Court was Fuchel's concern about perjury if 

defendant testified at trial because defendant allegedly said he was going to lie at trial 

regarding the statements that Valentine made. This had very little, if anything, to do with 

regard to why Fuchel did not cross-examine Valentine. When pressed by defense counsel at 

the PCRA hearing, Fuchel confirmed that he must impeach this type of witness. Valentine 

had a conviction for theft by deception, and another conviction in Fayette County. Fuchel 

confirmed that he did not question Valentine about these matters, and Puchel 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 against defendant was James Sarver. 

Sarver was another jailhouse informant, who indicated that defendant admitted to the 

killing. Sarver also had a conviction for terroristic threats. Although not a crimen falsi 

crime, Sarver was on probation, and Fuchel could have questioned Sarver on whether he 

expected any favorable treatment on a probation violation, which was never done. Fuchel 

Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM
24 

was informed by the Commonwealth that he would not be charged for providing drugs to 

around the time of the homicide. (Trial Transcript, Vol. IV, p. 274). Brown conceded that he 

witness to testify regarding defendant's drug purchases or attempts to purchase drugs at or 

I . 

' 

The sixth Commonwealth witness was Patrick Brown. Brown· was the second 

recall why he did not use them for cross-examination purposes. 

unlawful taking. Both of these crimes were of a crimen falsi nature and Fuchel could not 

Vol. IV, p. 247). Silberger had a conviction for burglary 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 whereabouts of the victim, Oennerfein 

(Silberger) at or around the time of the murder. Silherger further testified that when he 

that defendant Dcnnerlein purchased several thousand dollars of crack cocaine from him 

The fifth Commonwealth witness was Brian Silberger. At trial, Silberger testified i . 

favorable to the defense in that it tended to implicate Campbell. 

witness, but did not do so in this case because he believed that Carter's testimony was 

use to cross-examine her. Fuchel indicated that he would normally Impeach this type of 

to Kelly Carter. Carter had a conviction for receiving stolen property, which Fuchel did not 

Fuchel Intended to pin blame on, saw blood on a dog at the residence and pointed this out 

.· to the residence after the crime and was present when Robert Campbell, the person who 

A fourth Commonwealth witness who testified was Kelly Carter. Kelly Carter came 

could not explain his failure to use this Information. 

terroristic threats probationary situation for cross-examination purposes at trial. Fuchel 

153, of the trial transcript Fuchel conceded that, in hindsight, he should have used the 

did question Sarver about a simple assault charge that was dismissed, at Volume V, page 

Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM
25 

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 AM
26 

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 occasion . 

. He indicated that Dennerleln caused these disruptions. 

As to the issue of defendant being in jail, Fuchel added that it was trial strategy for 

. this information to come into evidence because Fuchel thought it would be helpful for the 

jury to know that the individuals who were testifying were also in jail. 

The Commonwealth brought out the fact that they objected when Fuchel went down 

this road, and Fuchel asked for a sidebar with the Court at trial and confirmed that he 

wanted this information before the jury. The Commonwealth stipulated that the 

information came before the jury at the request of defendant with no objection or curative 

Instruction requested. 

Fuchel was also questioned regarding the third Issue raised by the defendant, 

namely, whether Zachary 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 the defendant 

Present defense counsel asserts that this gives rise to the basis for a motion to suppress the 

statements made to Valentine on the basis that Valentine may have been acting as an agent 

for the Commonwealth in securing admissions without Miranda warnings. Fuchel said he 

did not know that Valentine was questioned and placed back in the same cell and never 

considered this Issue or argument 

The fourth issue was general failure to cross-examine witnesses. For example, 

present defense counsel brought to Fuchel's attention that the Commonwealth only placed 

into evidence bank records of the victim at or near the time of the homicide to establish 

Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM
27 

Dennerlein confirmed that paralegal Dionna Steele came to the jail several times to 

meet with him, and on one occasion Fuchel was also present As to the Incident in which 

2. Benjamin James Dennerlein 

The defendant, Benjamin James Dennerleln, also testified at the PCRA hearing . 

• Defendant Dennerlein was present throughout the hearing. 

Dennerlein testified that Fuchel, with the assistance of another Assistant 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 jail to see him and never spoke with him In the lock-up prior to the 

: preliminary hearing. The first time that defendant Dennerlein actually met with, and saw, 

Fuchel was in the courtroom when the preliminary hearing occurred. 

The next step In the process was the arraignment In October of 2009. Defendant was 

incarcerated between the time of the preliminary hearing and the arraignment, and 

testified that he had no contact with Fuchel between the time of the preliminary hearing 

and the arraignment 

Dennerleln stated that a private investigator. for the public defender's office did 

come to the jail in early 2010 to gather information and that Fuchel came to the jail later in 

January of 2010 and several times between January of 2010 and the time of trial in July of 

2010. 

that defendant was using the credit/debit card at that time and thereby establish a motive 

for the killing. Present defense counsel pointed out that Fuchel neglected to use prior bank 

records to indicate that defendant had used the credit/debit card well in advance of the 

homicide. · 

Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM
28 

j 

Fuchel claimed that Dennerlein became verbally abusive and physical, the defendant 

. testified that Fuchel actually got in his face and that he (defendant) did not get physical 

with Fuchel. Dennerleln stated that the incident got very loud and that a jail guard came 

. into the room because of the noise. According to Dennerlein, Dionna Steele advised the 

guard that the defendant did nothing wrong. 

Dennerlein went on to state that, after his conviction in this case, he had to file his 

own appeal because Fuchel neglected to timely file the appeal. No post-sentence motion 

was filed. 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 because of this. Present 

defense counsel was appointed and handled the appeal. 

Defendant testified that throughout the trial, and early appeal proceedings, 

defendant's mother was providing letters to Fuchel, which Fuchel failed to respond to. 

Defendant filed his own PCRA petition in September of 2013 and present defense counsel 

filed a supplement In April, 2014. 

The defendant did address specific comments and allegations raised by Fuchel. As to 

the testimony of Zachary Valentine, defendant advised that Fuchel told him that Valentine 

was going to testify that defendant confessed to Valentine and that this testimony may hurt 

at trial. Defendant testified that he never said he would perjure himself. According to 

defendant, he (defendant) requested that Fuchel cross-examine Valentine with 

impeachment material, and Fuchel responded that he did not want to complicate the case. 

Defendant was adamant about the fact that he pressed Fuchel to impeach Valentine. 

As to Laura Rankin, defendant claims that he actually brought some of the crimen 

Jalsi convictions to Fuchel's attention. Defendant testified that Fuchel never advised him 

: I 

Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM
29 

(defendant) that he wouldn't use the Information against Rankin because she was 

. favorable. Instead, defendant testified that Fuchel did not even know about Rankin's prior 

: convictions until defendant brought them to his attention. 

With regard to all of the Commonwealth witnesses who had prior convictions, 

defendant testified that he was not aware that a corrupt and polluted source charge was in 

order and that Fuchel never requested one. It was only after present defense counsel 

, brought this to defendant's attention that he was aware of this. 

As to the issue of defendant's incarceration being brought up at trial, defendant 

. stated that Fuchel told him during trial that a deputy sheriff would mention that the 

• defendant was in jail after a sidebar with the Court, but also stated that Robert Campbell 

had already testified to It and therefore it would come In. According to defendant, Fuchel 

never discussed this issue with him in advance or whether It was part of the trial strategy. 

Defendant claimed that he knew it was not right for this information to come in because the 

sheriff went to great lengths to keep the jury from seeing defendant being escorted to the 

courtroom by deputy sheriffs in handcuffs and shackles during breaks in the trial. 

Defendant testified that when it was time for the defense case to begin, defense 

counsel called multiple witnesses in a brief period and then turned to him (defendant) and 

said "you're next, but I suggest you not testify." Defendant contends that this is the only 

time Fuchel discussed with him whether or not to testify. 

With regard to the third issue, namely, Zachary Valentine potentially being an agent 

of the government, Dennerlein testified Fuchel never discussed this issue with him. It came 

to light that Valentine had testified for the Commonwealth in other cases and that neither 

defendant nor Fuchel knew this. 

,· 

Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM
30 

Dennerlein 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 write 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 records, 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 withdrawals 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 AM
31 

a representative of the District Attorney should speak to Valentine regarding the 

Dennerlein case. This caused the District Attorney's Office to request transport of Valentine 

from the Beaver County Jail to the Beaver County Courthouse for questioning on May 18, 

2009, prior to the trial in this case. Chamberlain advised that he secured all of Valentine's 

. knowledge and Information in the interview of May 18, 2009 and had no intention of 

speaking with him again short of requesting his testimony at the trial. Chamberlain did 

• indicate that there eventually arose the need for a second meeting for the purpose of 

. having Valentine draw a diagram of the crime scene. Chamberlain indicated that he did not 

· know that Valentine had served as a witness for the Commonwealth in prior cases at the 

. time he interviewed Valentine in 2009. Chamberlain learned this later through discussion 

with another Beaver County Detective, Kim Clements. According to Chamberlain, Valentine 

expressed fear of being In the same cell with the defendant, and Chamberlain testified that 

he never told Valentine to keep his eyes and ears open about the case or to solicit any 

further information from Dennerlein after the Initial Interview on May 18, 2009. 

On cross-examination, Chamberlain testified that he was able to corroborate 

Valentine's information given during the interview, In fact, Chamberlain stated that he left 

the Interview room on several occasions during the Interview to check Valentine's 

statement and was able to confirm what he was saying based upon review of phone records 

and photos of the crime scene. Chamberlain was the final witness called by the defense. 

4. Kim Clements 

The prosecution commenced its case on Friday, August 8, 2014. They first called 

Detective Kim Clements. Clements testified regarding Zachary Valentine. She stated that 

she knew Valentine as a result of his prior testimony for the Commonwealth in another 

Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM
32 

that was not in the Chamberlain report, but no major inconsistencies. St Clair did not know 

specifics on dates of interviews. Also, there was additional information In St. Clair's report 

inference that there were a number of interviews with Valentine. There are no other 

that was inconsistent with Chamberlain and Clements was that St Clair's report raises the 

solicit any additional information from Dennerlein. The one thing that St Clair testified to 

at the crime scene. St Clair also confirmed that he gave no instructions to Valentine to 

specific information regarding Dennerlein's statement that coincided with evidence found 

I 

. I 

referring to his report and was permitted to do so. St Clair did recall that Valentine gave 

St Clair indicated that he could not recall all of the details of the interview without 

interview. St Clair was the co-affiant on the criminal charges with Detective Chamberlain. 

Department. St. Clair· is now the chief, but was a sergeant at the time of the Valentine 

The next Commonwealth witness was Chief Eugene St Clair of the Freedom Police 

5. Eu(lene St. Clair 

stated that she was involved in his preparation for testimony at trial. 

· him to do so. Clements confirmed that there was a second interview of Valentine and also 

On cross-examination, Clements admitted that she believed Valentine may come 

~ 

. back with some additional information after the first Interview, but she never instructed 

: the defendant or to act as an agent for the Commonwealth. 

from the prosecution gave Valentine any instructions to pursue further information from 

attention of the prosecution. Clements also confirmed that neither she nor anyone else 

. involvement in this case. She confirmed that it was Valentine's wife who brought him to the 

testified that she played no part in arranging for Valentine to be Interviewed or in his 

homicide case. She did participate in the Valentine interview on May 18, 2009. Clements 

Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM
33 

: Valentine prior to the interview in question. St Clair indicated that he only interviewed 

Valentine in the presence of Beaver County detectives, but did recall that he was involved 

in interviews on more than one occasion. 

6. Dionna Steek 

The final witness called by the Commonwealth was Dionna Steele, a paralegal In the 

· Beaver County Public Defender's Office. This testimony was the most troubling for the 

Court with regard to the PCRA hearing. Reference to Attorney Fuchel's testimony above 

reflects that he testified to an Incident at the Beaver County Jail In which Fuchel claimed 

that Dennerleln became hostile in an attorney interview room with Dionna Steele present. 

Fuchel testified that Dennerlein pushed ~s. Steele to the ground and came after 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 Dennerleln. She indicated that she had met with 

Dennerlein 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 Dennerleln When Fuchel entered the room. She testified 

that Fuchel began yelling at the defendant and the defendant 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 Fuchel began to back up and actually backed 

into her. Dennerleln thought she may fall and grabbed her arm to prevent her from falling. 

Other than this, Steele testified that Dennerlein never touched her. A jail guard came Into 

the room, and Steele told the guard that the defendant did not do anything wrong. 

On both direct and cross-examination, Steele testified that it was Attorney Fuchel 

who got into the defendant's face. She speclfically testified that the situation was escalated 

Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM
34 

2. That there was prejudicial error to the defendant in that 

there was a reference to defendant's Incarceration during the 

1. That defense counsel failed to cross-examine witnesses on 

the basis of bias and prior criminal records of crimen falsi or 

otherwise; 

follows: 

The defendant's PCRA petition has raised four claims here. Those claims are as 

A. Claims Made by the Defendant 

ANALVSJS 

[Fuchel) at the time of the incident 

prosecution witness, who actually worked in the same office as Defense Trial Counsel 

Fuchel, and she specifically undercut Fuchel's version of the events. This came from a 

The Court questioned Steele in an attempt to compare her testimony with that of 

because she believed that and did not want to see Dennerlein receive sanctions at the jail. 

she told the jail guard that the defendant did nothing wrong in the attorney meeting room 

and the fact that he (Dennerlein) was not receiving anything from Fuchel. Steele stated that 

She stated that Dennerlein was very frustrated in her discussions with him about discovery 

with him prior to trial. In fact, she stated that defendant Dennerleln was always respectful. 

Steele to say that Dennerlein never gave her a problem throughout the time that she met 

Defense counsel pressed Steele on cross-examination and was successful in getting 

relationship between the two was hostile from that point forward. 

angry and was clearly the aggressor in this situation. According to Steele's testimony, the 

She said that Fuchel was within inches of Dennerlein's face. She stated that Fuchel was very 

and specifically recalled that he walked toward Dennerlein and got into his (Puchel's) face. 

by Attorney Fuchel pounding on the table. She was startled by Attorney Fuchel's actions 

Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM
35 

I Defendant raised other issues in bis original Petition, but these four issues are the only real issues pursued at the 

hearing other than some questions regarding the direct appeal, which are discussed i!J.frJ1. 

counsel, with those three parts being as follows: (1) the underlying legal issue has arguable 

three-part test .to determine whether a defendant has received ineffective assistance of 

_____ 80 L.Ed.2d 674, (1984). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court set forth a 

132 (Pa. 2012) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-91, 104 S.Ct 2052, 

deficient and that such deficiency prejudiced him." Commonwealth v. Koehler, 36 A.3d 121, 

. presumption, the PCRA petitioner must demonstrate· that counsel's performance was 

"It is well-established that counsel is presumed effective, and to rebut that 

,r13 of defendant's Amended Petition for Post-Conviction Collateral Relief). 

is therefore entitled to either a new trial or dismissal of the charges against him. (mp. 2, 

Defendant contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance and that he 

B. Applicable Law 

that will be addressed by the Court in the following subsections. 1 

These are the contentions that testimony and evidence was received on and are the issues 

4. That defendant was denied the right to confrontation under 

the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions on the basis 

of defense counsel's ineffective cross-examination. 

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 

trial of this case placed into evidence by both defense counsel 

and the Commonwealth; 

Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM
36 

Valentine was nm given any instructions to interrogate the defendant or to obtain any 

occasion by the detectives, and the uncontradlcted testimony further· established that 

to the contrary, the evidence established that Valentine was only questioned on one 

This claim was not established by the evidence adduced at the PCRA hearing. In fact, 

without any Miranda warnings. 

to the jail, allegedly to further question the defendant and obtain admissions from him 

Detectives at the Beaver County Courthouse in May of 2009, and was thereafter sent back 

Defendant goes on to contend that Valentine was transported to speak with the County 

defendant about, and the defendant admitted to, the killing of the victim in this case. 

acting as an agent for the CommonweaJth at the time that he had discussions with the 

rights under the United States Constitution were violated because Zachary Valentine was 

a government agent Specifically, he asserts that his Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment 

motion to suppress due to defendant's alleged interrogation, without Miranda warnings, by 

Defendant's third claim asserts that counsel was ineffective for 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 under the Pennsylvania 

and United States Constitutions on the basis of defense 

counsel's Ineffective cross·cxamtnatlon) Lack Merit 

defendant's four claims under these parameters. 

· Pierce, 515 Pa. 153, ___, 527 A2d 973, 975 (1987). The Court must analyze 

prejudiced by counsel's act or omission. Koehler, 36 A.3d at 132 (clung Commonwealth v. 

merit; (2) counsel's actions lacked an objective reasonable basis; and (3) the defendant was 

Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM
37 

Commonwealth witness. In essence, defendant claims that not only was the evidence brought 

the fact that defendant's own counsel elicited this testimony through cross-examination of a 

evidence by the Commonwealth that he was incarcerated prior to and during the trial, but also 

Defendant claims that he was prejudiced in this case by not only the admission of 

D. Defendant's Second Claim (Alleged Improper Reference 

At Trial to Incarceration of Defendant) Must be Denied 

Because Defense Counsel had a Reasonable Strategic 

Basis for His Action In Admitting the Bvldence, and the 

,1ahn Also Lacks Medt 

and the evidence adduced at the PCRA hearing. I 

Court, does not arise to a meritorious claim based upon the evidence in the trial transcript 

the Facts section above (Trial Tr., Vol. IV, pp. 340·41). This issue, in the estimation of the 

testimony that the defendant not only had access to the card, but also the PIN as stated in 

I. 

defendant was accorded the ability to place this matter before the jury by Rankin's 

The evidence of record establishes, through the testimony of Laura Rankin, that the 

advance of the same, thereby showing that defendant had consented-to access to the card. 

the victim's credit/debit card not only at our around the time of the homicide, but also in 

prior bank statements to cross-examine witnesses and establish that defendant had used 

defense counsel at the hearing in August, 2014 was that trial defense counsel failed to use 

examination by defense counsel, must be denied for lack of merit The major issue raised by 

cross-examination of those witnesses testifying against him because of the lack of crossAlso, defendant's fourth claim, namely that he was denied the right of effective 

_ him. Without evidence to support this claim, it must be denied for lack of arguable merit 

further admissions from him by the County detectives or police officers who interviewed 

Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM
38 

j 

before the jury by testimony, but also that defense counsel did not request a curative instruction 

. with regard to the testimony. 

The trial transcript and the testimony of Attorney Fuchel at the PCRA hearing established 

. that defense counsel asked Commonwealth witness Robert Campbell where he met the 

defendant, and the response was that Campbell met the defendant while both were in jail. At the 

PCRA hearing, as noted in the Facts section above, Fuchel testified that it was his trial strategy 

. for this information to come into evidence because he thought it would be helpful for the jury to 

know that Campbell, who was the individual that defense counsel hoped to pin blame on, had 

been in jail in the past and, therefore, had a questionable background himself. The 

Commonwealth stipulated, at the PCRA hearing, that this information came before the jury at the 

request of the defendant with no objection or curative instruction requested. To the Court's 

information and understanding, there was no reference as to why the defendant was in jail before 

or during the trial. The only reference was to the fact that defendant was in jail. 

"Generally, where matters of strategy and tactics are concerned, counsel's assistance is 

deemed constitutionally effective if he chose a particular course that had some reasonable basis 

designed to effectuate his client's interest" Commonwealth v, Howard, 553 Pa. 266, _ 

719 A.2d 233, 237 (1998). The Howard Court also noted that a claim for ineffective assistance 

of counsel cannot succeed by simply comparing, by hindsight, the trial strategy employed with 

alternatives not pursued. "A finding that a chosen strategy lacked a reasonable basis is not 

warranted unless it can be concluded that an alternative not chosen offered a potential for success 

substantially greater than the course actually pursued." Id. 

In this case, the trial testimony not only included the references noted with regard to the 

Campbell testimony noted above, but also included the testimony of Zachary 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 admissions 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 this 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 AM
40 

with regard to the meeting between Attorney Fuchel and defendant at the Beaver County 

Jail prior to trial referenced in the Facts section above. Fuchelfrended that the defendant 

Moreover, the Court was troubled by the stark contrast of the versions of the events 

know about the crimes so that he could use them in cross-examination. 

manner, why he did not question these witnesses with regard to these crimes or did not 

counsel's answers were Inexplicable. He consistently could not explain, in a rational 

purposes could increase the chance of acquittal "in a prosecution of this type." Defense 

importantly, his admission that the use of crimes of crimen fa/sl for cross-examination 

examine Brian Silberger with his convictions for crimes of er/men falsi; and, most 

crimen falsi to cross-examine James Sarver; that he could not recall why he did not cross- 

"slipped through the cracks": that in hindsight, "he should have used" the convictions of 

prior convictions for crimes of crimen falsi with regard to Zachery Valentine may have 

., 

for cross-examination purposes. Counsel (Fuchel) used such terms in his testimony as the 

credibility or that he simply did not take the time to discover that such information existed 

Commonwealth witnesses with regard to crimes of crtmen falsi that could affect their 

from defense counsel's testimony that he either completely neglected to cross-examine key 

This issue was the most troubling to the Court in this case. It was abundantly clear 

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 was detained as a result of the case for which he was on trial and, therefore, proper 

Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM
41 

The 'prejudice' prong. under the PCRA, is satisfied when the 

petitioner demonstrates that the alleged ineffectiveness so 

undermined the truth-determining process that no reliable 

--~ 856 A.2d 806, 812 n.S (2004), stated as follows: 

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in Commonwealth v. D'Amato, 579 Pa. 490, 

counsel's Ineffectiveness. 

the third requirement, namely, whether the petitioner suffered prejudice because of 

his action or inaction. This requires the Court to consider, for purposes of this claim, only 

argument has merit, and second, that counsel (Fuchel) had no reasonable strategic basis for 

burden of proof requirements are met by this claim, namely, first, that the underlying 

All of these factors lead the Court to the conclusion that the first two prongs of the PCRA 

because of Fuchel's negligence, and that the defendant actually filed his own PCRA petition. 

Superior Court, that new counsel had to be appointed to handle the appeal and the PCRA 

· file his own appeal after conviction, that attorney Fuchel missed filing deadlines with the 

from that point forward as hostile. It must also be remember~d that the defendant had to 

instigator. This paralegal described the relationship between Fuchel and the defendant 

defendant grabbed her arm to prevent her from falling while Fuchel was clearly the 

confirmed, to the letter, the defendant's version of the events, specifically testifying that the 

the Court was expecting to hear her confirm Fuchel's version of the events. Instead, she 

Commonwealth called the paralegal (Dionna Steele) to the stand during the PCRA hearing, 

was merely trying to assist the paralegal who was knocked backward. When the 

Fuchel was the instigator, that Fuchel got in his (defendant's) face and that he (defendant) 

. contested this and gave a different version of the events. The defendant testified that 

became hostile, attacked him and knocked his paralegal to the ground. The defendant 

Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM
42 

2 The Court also notes that even th.ough these matters were not covered in cross-examination of the witnesses, other 

matters were covered, such as the incarcerated status of some of the witnesses and drug selling or dependency status 

of others that cast them in an unfavorable light in the jury's eyes and thereby called !heir credibility into question. 

to work on that date. Defendant also stated that he was watching a hockey game with his 

at work. Video evidence from the victim's employer clearly showed that the victim never came 

the victim to work on the night of the incident and then went back to pick her up, but she was not 

provide quasi-alibi evidence to exonerate himself. The defendant specifically stated that he took 

testimony reflects that defendant attempted to explain away his involvement in this matter and 

Detectives Patrick and Clements that is detailed at length at pages 11-13 of this Opinion. That 

For example, there was testimony regarding defendant's statement to Beaver County 

lack of cross-examination .. 

However, there was significant other evidence against the defendant that was not affected by this 

evidence against defendant, this claim would surely be meritorious and result in a new trial. 

prior convictions, relates only to admissions allegedly made by the defendant and his use of the 

victim's credit/debit card for purposes of furthering his drug habit.2 If this was the extent of the 

Commonwealth's case against him. The failure to cross-examine these witnesses, with regard to 

While defendant's claim docs have merit, it only relates to a portion of the 

reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place. 

r 

counsel's ineffectiveness so undermined the truth-determining process in this case that no 

13, 724 A.2d 326, 333 (1999). Thus, the Court must determine, under this standard, whether 

Pa 312, , 780 A.2d 649, 652 (2001); and Commonwealth v. Kimball, 555 Pa. 299, 312- 

See also, Commonwealth v. Miller, 819 A.2d 504, 517 (Pa. 2012); Commonwealth v. Tilley, 566 

adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place, see 42 

Pa.C.S. §9543(a)(ii), in other words, that there is a reasonable 

probability that, but for counsel's act or omission, the outcome of 

the proceeding would have been different 

Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM
43 

1 The Court is cognizant of the fact that the record reflects that defendant filed his own appeal (Docket Entty No. 

57); that after the appeal was tiled. defense counsel (/FucheO failed to file a brief on defendant's behalf and was 

admonished by the Pennsylvania Superior Court for failure to file said brief in an Order of June 23, 2011 and given 

30 additional days to file the brief, but still failed to file a brief (Docket Entry No. 77); and that failure to file an 

appeal or an appellate brief constitutes abandonment of counsel and, therefore, per se, ineffectiveness. 

Commonwealth v. Brill, 83 A.2d 198, 203 (Pa. Super. 2013), clling Commonwealth v. Burkett, 5 A.3d 1260, 1277 

(Pa. Super. 2010). However, Fuchcl was removed from the case and new counsel was appointed. This new counsel 

pursued the appeal with the Superior Court, filed a brief and requested allowance of appeal from the Pennsylvania 

Supreme Court, thereby alleviating the prejudice. Moreover, defendant alluded to the deficiencies on the last page 

(p. 44) of his original PCRA motion, but presented no evidence regarding this at the August, 2014 hearing other than 

to obtain an admission from Fuchel that be (Fuchel) failed to file the appellate brief. 

in the Facts section of this Opinion between pages 2 and 20, clearly overcomes any claim of 

prejudice made by the defendant in this claim of his petition.3 The Court, in its discretion, does 

This evidence, when coupled with an abundance of other circumstantial evidence recited 

died as a result of stab wounds to the neck . . J 

apparently the murder weapon. Dr'. James Smith, a forensic pathologist, testified that the victim 

the defendant as a potential contributor of blood found on a knife in the kitchen, which was 

as a potential contributor to a blood stain found on the defendant's shoes and could not exclude 

Most importantly, a DNA examination of blood found on the defendant's blue jeans 

matched the victim's blood. That same DNA analysis could not exclude the blood of the victim 

would have been killed. 

locations, placed the defendant in the area of the victim's residence during the hours when she 

the defendant from witnesses and video displays of the defendant at bank, ATM and retail 

· As stated at page 16 of this Opinion, this information, together with the known observations of 

telephone calls, in chronologicaJ order, that are detailed at pages 13 through 16 of this Opinion. 

Moreover, the Commonwealth presented records of A TM transactions and cellular 

that date. 

directly contradicted by the girlfriend who denied that she ever went to the victim's residence on 

girlfriend at the victim's residence on the night in question. This portion of the statement was 

Circulated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM
44 

,_, 

= 

- -= 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 

-:re .. (/) .- 

>-:x::: > 

JZ 

.>Z §ffi 0 

:z:: t1J LU 

~d ~ a:/l.. 

BY THE COURT: 

Order will be entered. 

For the foregoing reasons, defendant's PCRA Petition will be denied. An appropriate 

CONCLUSION 

and, therefore, denies the petition on the basis of this claim. 

determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place 

not believe that the alleged ineffectiveness by this issue, alone, so undermined the truthCirculated 10/29/2015 10:26 AM