the .PORA.hearings held onJune 8 and I 9,
2017, the following claims. ofineffective Assistance .of Counsel under the 'Sixth and Fourteenth
Arnendmentsto the: United States ConsthiJtiQti .Art I, §9 ofthe Pennsylvania 'Constitutiorr' 1. Failure to challenge sentence on-the ground thstthe :c;o,urt illegally took 'into account his _prior decision :to plead : not 'guilty .and ·go to· trial for 11 prior game law violation; thereby punishing him for. exercising his rigllt ;to go to _trial in thatmatter;
2; Failure to recommend .and help Petitioner challenge at -sentencing the implications the Courtcoulddraw from the presence of dirt in. one of the firearms 'by'having bimexplain.he was not responsible for the condition of the firearm; · ·
·,3. Failure torecommend and help Petitioner explain the transferof'his propertyto his mother, which .was. not done at his insti��ti9n pr wi.th his parUcipati_on;
:4. Failure to recommend and help Petitjoner explain his failure. to contact emergency services :immed.iate}y aft�r the �]1qoting1 as an. explanation was available to explain _.wh.y and how these events occurred and .why ·tne Co,un drew the wrong .implications from them -when .sentencing the Petitioner;
5. Failure ·to allow the Court and the Commonwealth to 'ask him questions, rather than .reco· that lie aUocut� so he could answer .the .allegations tlre 'Court and .the . Commonwealthraised thathe continued .tcr conceal evidence.ofthe .sheoting and.otherwise did not _a(;t in a responsible and-remorseful way;:_anci
6 .. Failure to seek letters ofreference to present to the Court at sentencing to mitigate; the sentence. Second'MotiontoAmend Defendant's PCRA Petition, $/3.1/l7i
V. DISCUSSION
Petitioner' s timely reques; :for post-conviction. relief is essentially based .upon .a.. general
claimthathis counsel was ineffective, pursuant to 42 P:a.C.S,A..:.§ :, fot...falIIngto elicit
from Petitioner; athis guil�y plea al;}d sentencing hearings, various .excuses that he :no,w. offersto
the Court to �xpl?iP his-conduct before-and after Ms ·kUl.i.ng of H,1� victim, Barry Groh. Petitioner
suggests that he :was prejudiced by his inability to explain h}s actions and 'that ·if he :h�d. had the
opportunity to provide those excuses, this Court would have been more lenientin th� imposition
Tq prevail on a pedtiort .. a p�ti;tioner must: plead and ·P°fOY� :by � preponderance.of the evidence tha; his or her conviction 'or $,�nt¢nqe -re.stilted frow .one or more of the ¢itGu,ms; enumerated in -42 :Pa:(;1.:$, § .9543(a).(2). These circumstances inQluq.� 11 yiplation ofthePennsylvania or United $J�te� Constitution or ineffectiveness of counsel, either of which "so undermined th� truth-determining process that.no r�:ii.�ble ·adjudkatkm : could. havetaken. place." 42 Pa.C.$.: §. 9S43{a)(2)(i) and (ii), :fo addition, a. petitioner must 'show that the claims of error have not 'been previously litigated ,o:t 'waived. 41. .Pa.,C.S. § 9543(a)(3). An .issue has been waived "if the :Petitfon�rc9ulq have i:�i.s�� (it hμt failed :t6 (lo SJ) before trial, .attrial, on appeal or in a.prior state pq�tH,c(}nviction proceeding." 42.Pa.G.;�. § 95.44(b). Art -jSSlJ� has been preyiously litigated if"the highest appellate court in which the-petitioner cp�i]� have had reviewas.a.matter of right has ruled.on the merit$ of the 1.�s1,1�.·· 4,2 Pa.C.;� .. § 9544(a).(2).
Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18