Opinion ID: 1487453
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: claims pertaining to trial counsel's ineffectiveness

Text: Appellant's final arguments pertain to allegations of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Specifically, appellant maintains that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to Commonwealth's cross-examination of appellant regarding: (1) his whereabouts after parting company of Reverend Bolden on August 31, 1986, after 12:45 a.m.; (2) the opening of bank accounts in joint names with others including Debra Hines; and (3) the disposition of church collections into one or more of the joint accounts. We do not find that counsel's failure to object in these circumstances undermined the reliability of the jury verdict. During direct examination, appellant testified that he was in Reverend Bolden's company from approximately 11:45 until 12:45 during the evening of August 31, 1986. This time period coincided with the eyewitness identification of appellant at the church. Given these circumstances, it was within the proper scope of cross-examination for the Commonwealth to question appellant regarding his whereabouts during the night and early morning of the incident. Moreover, the questions were relevant and within the accepted limits of cross-examination for the Commonwealth was entitled to attack the credibility of appellant by demonstrating that appellant's memory was selective. The Commonwealth's cross-examination was also proper with regard to any joint accounts that may haven been held by Debra Hines and appellant. As the PCHA court notes, Debra Hines was listed as an alibi witness for the defense. During cross-examination, appellant admitted that he was with Ms. Hines during a part of the early morning hours of August 31, 1986. Consequently, the prosecutor's subsequent questions in reference to any joint accounts were relevant and proper in that they attacked the credibility of appellant by exploring appellant's relationship with Ms. Hines. Finally, any reference to the disposition of church funds as a result of the Commonwealth's cross-examination did not result in prejudice to the defendant. We disagree with appellant that the following testimony clearly refers to prior criminal conduct: Q Now, something has been made of the fact that payments weren't made out of the standard church account after March of 1986. Is it correct you started collecting the money yourself and putting it into one of these accounts. A No, sir. Q That were opened? A This is not correct. Q You didn't put it into a new account, open a new account for the church? A No, I did not. Q You had another account, the pastor's account. What was that for? A That was an auxiliary account just like there are thirteen other accounts in the church that have signatures to it to do whatever they are doing it for. N.T. 4/2/87 at 234. See Commonwealth v. Potts, 314 Pa.Super. 256, 275-77, 460 A.2d 1127, 1137 (1983) (Characterization is prejudicial if the testimony conveys, either expressly or by reasonable implication, the fact of a prior criminal offense.). It, therefore, follows that trial counsel's failure to object to Commonwealth's questioning did not undermine the reliability of the jury verdict. Accordingly, sentence on count three for institutional vandalism is modified to two years' probation; otherwise, judgment of sentence is affirmed.