opportunity tff�resent astatement on his
own 'behalf in 9rqer · to expl,ain his conduct, and he :w.�s freed from any .challenges ot cross �xarninatipQ ·that would potentially, .and jn this case most .likely, impeach hjs statements Md
confirm.his dishonesty and deceitfulness, :As a result, Petitioner cannot demonstrate.any prejudice
resulting :from his decision-to allocate,
Furthermore, despite 'being :a, licensed attorney in· the .Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
:P¢titioner demonstratedhis complete ignorance of the eoneept.of.allocution. when he was a.sk�d
:Page 22 :of.24 by this Court. 'Aih(it·i�it meant. to allocute before ajudge," Petitioner'sresponse that "I was under
the 'impression, Your 'Honor; to open .up for direct and cross examination "by the .. court was my
.interpretation of the allocuticn [sicJ/w�;as we observed, ·t'jμstal?otit.lOO"per¢.ent.inc.9fl'.�Ct'' (See
N.T. 6/l9/l 7) p. 94.) · Petitioner's claim .is .therefore based upoIJ a misconception
. 411d::�isu11derstanding o,f allocution,
· Next,:botn of Petitioner's CQ).UlSel credibly testified that.while they .advisedhirn to allocute, the ultimate decision to do sq .was strictlymadebyhim, and .that.Petitioner was in factvinvolved
.inevery step of the representation.jand] ultimately, every decision was .11-;i�." (See N'.tr: :61$/j.7, pp,
27,. 104.)f urthermore, despite' his: assertions to thecontrary, -w.e did not find.ashredof credibility
in Petitioner's self-serving testimony in whichhe attempted · to -convinoe this. Qourt .that he .had
·be�n:coetced"�y.hfa counsel into .allccuting, (:�q-� N. . .T.:6/19/17? 1:Jp..:80, 18Q ..) ·We further noted that despite -. all .C>f his .testimeny to ¢.e _cqntrary, .Petitioner r�{qctaptly admitted that the decision ·to
.allecute.was his .. (S�!! N.'.f.N8!.17, p. "179)
P�titipne1/s counsel.also testified throughout thesehearingsthat, upoh. of'the
potellth1JJederaLcha,rges.l;' as the result of the discovery ()fhi$ :illeg