J-S38023-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

STANLEY NEWELL 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2491 EDA 2022

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered September 1, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-51-CR-0001491-2016

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED DECEMBER 14, 2023

Stanley Newell appeals from the order denying his first petition filed 

pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). 42 Pa.C.S.A §§ 9541-46. 

We affirm.

The pertinent facts and police investigation have been summarized as 

follows:

On September 20, 2014, the Twisters Motorcycle Club 

hosted its annual anniversary ceremony at the Nifiji Event Hall at 

1432 Chew Avenue in North Philadelphia. Between 500 and 1,000 

people affiliated with several Philadelphia motorcycle clubs 

attended the event, including Desmond “Little G” Davis, a member 

of the Twisters, [Newell], a member of the rival Byrd Riders 

Motorcycle Club, and his co-defendant, Marcus “Taz” Brown, 

another Byrd Rider.

At approximately midnight on September 21, 2014, an 

argument between “Gun,” the chapter president of the Byrd 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S38023-23

- 2 -

Riders, and Davis commenced outside the event hall on Chew 

Avenue, drawing the attention of [Newell] and Brown. As the 

argument continued, [Newell] approached Davis and fellow

Twister Tyrell Ginyard and argued with Davis, while co-defendant 

Brown ran up to Davis from behind, brandished a Colt .45 caliber 

pistol, and pointed it at Davis’ face.

Approximately ten feet away from [Newell] and Davis, the 

decedent Michael “Country” Baker, a member of the Twisters, 

drew his pistol, raised it above his head, and fired one shot. The 

gunfire caused the crowd of over seventy-five attendees standing 

outside the Event Hall to panic and scatter. Several armed 

attendees drew their weapons and proceed[ed] to fire at each 

other. 

After the gunfire broke out, [Newell] left the Event Hall via 

Chew Avenue, armed himself with a revolver, and returned to the 

scene. Erick Clark, a Twister, ran outside to assist his club during 

the commotion, and linked up with the decedent. Clark and the 

decedent observed [Newell] fire shots from his location on Chew 

Avenue and they returned fire. The decedent ran towards 

[Newell’s] location returning fire, whereupon [Newell] shot him in 

the neck.

Deputy Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Albert Chu, an expert in 

forensic pathology, reviewed the decedent’s autopsy report and 

concluded, to a reasonable degree of medical and scientific 

certainty, that the decedent suffered two gunshot wounds, 

including one fatal, penetrating wound to his neck. The fatal 

projectile travelled through the decedent’s trachea, superior vena 

cava, right lung, and rib, and was ultimately recovered from his 

right upper back. The wound would have caused significant blood 

loss, prevented the decedent from breathing, and would have 

been rapidly fatal.

Officers of the Philadelphia Police crime scene unit 

investigated the area surround[ing] the Nifiji Event Hall and 

recovered twenty-five fired cartridge casings (FCCs) and a live .38 

caliber Smith & Wesson round. Officer Ronald Weitman, a 

ballistics expert, investigated the projectile recovered from the 

decedent’s body and determined that it was consistent with having 

been fired from a .38 Special revolver.

Detective Frank Mullen, an expert in video recovery, 

obtained video surveillance footage from multiple angles at the 

Nifiji Event Hall and a private residence at 5626 Park Avenue. The 
J-S38023-23

- 3 -

recovered video showed the decedent walking around a vehicle 

and [Newell] walk[ing] eastbound on Chew Avenue with a gun in 

his hand. As the decedent approaches, [Newell] pointed his 

revolver at the decedent, ready to fire. Immediately after, the 

decedent runs away hunched over and doubled down. Another 

individual is shown returning fire from Park Avenue.

Philadelphia detectives interviewed Clark, Ginyard, and 

fellow Twister and eyewitness Rodney Gregory, each of whom

identified [Newell] via the photo array and as the armed male 

walking down Chew Avenue and aiming his weapon at the 

decedent in the video. After his arrest, police detectives 

interviewed [Newell], who was read his Miranda warnings and 

provided a taped interview and written statement. During the 

interview, [Newell] stated that he grabbed a gun in front of the 

Nifiji Event Hall and walked down Chew Avenue, where he either 

dropped the gun or gave it to someone else. Detectives showed 

[Newell] video of him walking down Chew Avenue armed with a 

gun, and he identified himself, but never showed him the 

sequence where he shot the decedent.

PCRA Court Opinion, 9/1/22, at 2-4 (citations omitted).

On November 8, 2016, Newell and Brown’s jury trial began. One week 

later, the jury convicted Newell of third-degree murder and related charges.1 

On January 30, 2017, the trial court sentenced Newell to an aggregate term 

of eighteen and one-half to thirty-seven years of imprisonment. Newell 

appealed. After determining that his claims were largely undeveloped or 

waived, this Court affirmed his judgment of sentence on March 23, 2018. 

Commonwealth v. Newell, 188 A.3d 550 (Pa. Super. 2018) (nonprecedential decision). 

____________________________________________

1 The jury convicted Brown of first-degree murder and related charges. He is 

currently serving a life sentence.
J-S38023-23

- 4 -

On December 20, 2018, Newell filed a pro se PCRA petition. Thereafter, 

privately-retained counsel filed his appearance, and filed an amended petition 

on June 28, 2019. Upon agreement of the parties, the PCRA court reinstated 

Newell’s appellate rights nunc pro tunc on August 26, 2019. Newell filed a 

timely appeal, and this Court affirmed his judgment of sentence on November 

16, 2020 (non-precedential decision). Commonwealth v. Newell, 242 A.3d 

417 (Pa. Super. 2020). On August 3, 2021, our Supreme Court denied 

Newell’s petition for allowance of appeal. Commonwealth v. Newell, 260 

A.3d 77 (Pa. Super. 2021).

On December 1, 2021, Newell filed another pro se PCRA petition, and 

the PCRA court appointed counsel. PCRA counsel filed an amended petition 

on April 14, 2022. Thereafter, the Commonwealth filed a motion to dismiss. 

On July 25, 2022, the PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of its intent 

to dismiss Newell’s petition without a hearing. Newell filed a pro se response. 

By opinion and order entered September 1, 2022, the PCRA court denied 

Newell’s amended petition. This appeal followed. The PCRA court did not 

require Pa.R.A.P. 1925 compliance.

Newell raises the following eleven issues on appeal:

Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to 

or correct the inaccurate prior record score used by the court when 

discussing the Commonwealth’s non-negotiated plea offer with 

[Newell]?

Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not admitting 

evidence that [Detective James] Pitts had a history of unlawful 

interrogation tactics to coerce witnesses and defendants into 

giving false statements?
J-S38023-23

- 5 -

Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call 

[Newell] as a witness at the motion to suppress hearing?

Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to 

exclude or object to Tyrell Ginyard’s testimony identifying 

[Newell] with a weapon in his hand from the video of the shooting?

Whether trial counsel was ineffective for allowing 

[Detective] Frank Mullen to edit and narrate the surveillance 

video?

Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call 

Aubrey Voliton as a witness?

Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to 

the trial [court’s] voluntary manslaughter instruction?

Whether trial counsel was ineffective for seeking a selfdefense jury instruction?

Whether the cumulative effect of trial counsel’s 

ineffectiveness prejudiced [Newell]?

Whether [Newell] is entitled to a new trial based on the 

allegations of [Detective Pitts’] misconduct in other cases which 

constituted after-discovered evidence?

Whether [Newell] was entitled to an evidentiary hearing 

after presenting material issues of fact for his claims?

Newell’s Brief at viii-ix.

This Court’s standard of review for an order dismissing a petition under 

the PCRA is to ascertain whether “the determination of the PCRA court is 

supported by the evidence of record and is free of legal error. The PCRA 

court’s findings will not be disturbed unless there is no support for the findings 

in the certified record.” Commonwealth v. Barndt, 74 A.3d 185, 191-92 

(Pa. Super. 2013) (citations omitted).
J-S38023-23

- 6 -

In his first nine issues, Newell challenges the effectiveness of trial 

counsel. To obtain relief under the PCRA premised on a claim that counsel 

was ineffective, a petitioner must establish by a preponderance of the 

evidence that counsel’s ineffectiveness so undermined the truth determining 

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

place. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 966 A.2d 523, 532 (Pa. 2009). 

“Generally, counsel’s performance is presumed to be constitutionally 

adequate, and counsel will only be deemed ineffective upon a sufficient 

showing by the petitioner.” Id. This requires the petitioner to demonstrate 

that: (1) the underlying claim is of arguable merit; (2) counsel had no 

reasonable strategic basis for his or her action or inaction; and (3) the 

petitioner was prejudiced by counsel's act or omission. Id. at 533. A finding 

of "prejudice" requires the petitioner to show "that there is a reasonable 

probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the 

proceeding would have been different." Id. A failure to satisfy any prong of 

the test for ineffectiveness will require rejection of the claim. 

Commonwealth v. Martin, 5 A.3d 177, 183 (Pa. 2010).

This Court “must defer to the credibility determinations made by the 

[PCRA] court that observed a witness’s demeanor first-hand.” 

Commonwealth v Todd, 820 A.2d, 707 712 (Pa. Super. 2003). See also 

Commonwealth v. Harmon, 738 A.2d 1023, 1025 (Pa. Super. 1999) 
J-S38023-23

- 7 -

(explaining that when a PCRA court’s determination of credibility is supported 

by the record, it cannot be disturbed on appeal).

In his tenth issue, Newell contends that he is entitled to a new trial 

based upon after-discovered evidence. In order to obtain relief based upon 

after-discovered evidence, a PCRA petitioner must show that the evidence:

“(1) could not have been obtained prior to the conclusion of the trial by the 

exercise of due diligence; (2) is not merely corroborative or cumulative; (3) 

will not be used solely to impeach the credibility of a witness, and (4) would 

likely result in a different verdict if a new trial was granted.” Commonwealth 

v. Williams, 215 A.3d 1019, 1024 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted). The 

test is conjunctive; the petitioner must show by a preponderance of the 

evidence that each of these facts had been met in order for a new trial to be 

warranted. Commonwealth v. Padillas, 997 A.2d 356, 363 (Pa. Super. 

2010).

In his final issue, Newell contends that the PCRA court erred in denying 

his amended PCRA petition without first holding an evidentiary hearing. As 

our Supreme Court has summarized: 

The PCRA court has discretion to dismiss a petition without 

a hearing when the court is satisfied that there are no 

genuine issues concerning any material fact, the defendant 

is not entitled to post-conviction collateral relief, and no 

legitimate purpose would be served by further proceedings. 

To obtain a reversal of a PCRA court’s decision to dismiss a 

petition without a hearing, an appellant must show that he 

raised a genuine issue of material fact which, if resolved in 

his favor, would have entitled him to relief, or that the court 

otherwise abused its discretion in denying a hearing. 
J-S38023-23

- 8 -

Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 108 A.3d 739, 750 (Pa. 2014) (citations 

omitted).

Here, the PCRA court has authored a thorough and well-reasoned 

opinion in support of its decision to deny Newell’s amended PCRA petition. The 

Honorable Barbara A. McDermott has correctly addressed each of Newell’s 

ineffectiveness claims with proper citation to legal authorities and citation to 

the certified record. We discern no legal errors in Judge McDermott’s analysis, 

and we find her factual findings and credibility determinations fully supported 

by our review of the record. In addition, Judge McDermott properly concluded 

that Newell’s after-discovered evidence claim did not warrant a new trial. 

Finally, because each of Newell’s claims could be disposed of adequately on 

the existing record, Judge McDermott properly dismissed Newell’s amended 

PCRA petition without first holding an evidentiary hearing.

In sum, we adopt Judge McDermott’s September 1, 2022 as our own in 

affirming the order denying Newell post-conviction relief. See PCRA Court’s 

Opinion, 9/1/22, at 6-8 (concluding that trial counsel was not ineffective for 

failing to correct the trial court’s reference to his prior record score; Newell 

was properly informed about his potential maximum sentence and he

knowingly rejected the plea offer); at 8 (rejecting Newell’s claim that trial 

counsel was ineffective for failing to introduce evidence that Detective Pitts 

had a history of unlawful interrogation tactics in unrelated cases; there was 

no evidence of Detective Pitts’ misconduct in this case); at 9-10 (concluding 
J-S38023-23

- 9 -

that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to call him as a witness at the 

suppression hearing; if Newell had testified at the suppression hearing, neither 

of his pre-trial statements would have been suppressed and he cannot 

establish prejudice given the overwhelming evidence of his guilt); at 10 

(rejecting Newell’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object 

to Ginyard’s testimony that he could see a weapon in Newell’s hand in the 

video; Ginyard’s testimony did not invade the province of the jury as factfinder); at 11-13 (concluding that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing 

to object to Detective Mullen’s narration of the surveillance video because it 

aided the jury’s understanding of the timing, actors and the location of events 

in the video; the jury was free to reach a different conclusion from Detective 

Mullen’s narration); at 13-14 (rejecting Newell’s ineffectiveness claim for 

failing to call Voliton as a witness at trial; during a colloquy with the court 

Newell agreed with counsel’s decision not to call any witnesses; Newell failed 

to establish that counsel knew or should have known of Voliton’s existence

and Voliton’s proffered testimony would not have resulted in a different 

verdict); at 14-16 (concluding Newell’s ineffectiveness claims regarding jury 

instructions were meritless; both the manslaughter and self-defense 

instructions were properly supported by trial evidence); at 16 (rejecting claim 

of cumulative effect of ineffectiveness when each prior claim lacked merit); 

and at 16-19 (reiterating that evidence of police misconduct in unrelated 

matters does not constitute after-discovered evidence because the evidence 
J-S38023-23

- 10 -

would be used solely for impeachment purposes and would not likely result in 

a different verdict; Newell did not demonstrate a pattern of police misconduct 

in his case).2

Order affirmed.

Date: 12/14/2023

____________________________________________

2 The parties are directed to attach Judge McDermott’s September 1, 2022, 

opinion to this memorandum in any future appeal.