Opinion ID: 2827857
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Rulings at the PCRA Court Evidentiary Hearing

Text: Appellant asserts the PCRA court interfered with his right to adequately examine witnesses and present relevant testimony on several issues during the PCRA hearings, which collectively prevented fact development in support of his claims. Initially, we note appellant, in his concise statement, raised the issue: Whether the PCRA [c]ourt erred in denying Petitioner/Appellant’s other motions, including but not limited to a motion to present a witness in rebuttal to Commonwealth witness Joy Halverson[,] a motion to recall [] Timothy George[,] [sic] and a motion to strike a statement contained in Commonwealth’s Exhibit 20, slide 9[.] Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) Statement, 5/14/12, at 5. The PCRA court found appellant’s use of the phrase “including but not limited to” did not preserve issues not specifically raised; thus, appellant waived all issues except for the ones set forth in his issue. PCRA Court Opinion, 5/22/12, at 2 n.1 (citation omitted).26 We agree and therefore address 26We observe that the court found appellant erroneously referred to Attorney Timothy Lucas as Timothy George. Id. [J-49-2013] - 61 only the three claims raised above, as the remaining contentions included in appellant’s brief are waived. Appellant contends the PCRA court erred in preventing him from presenting rebuttal testimony from DNA expert Dr. Antoinette Marsh. The Commonwealth asserts the court permitted appellant sufficient latitude in cross-examining Dr. Halverson and it soundly exercised its discretion in finding additional rebuttal evidence unnecessary. “It is well settled that the admission or rejection of rebuttal evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Commonwealth v. Bond, 985 A.2d 810, 829 (Pa. 2009). Here, the PCRA court precluded the proposed expert rebuttal testimony because it would have been merely cumulative and exceeded the parameters of rebuttal evidence. PCRA Court Opinion, 12/20/10, at 2. The court determined Dr. Marsh’s proffered opinion was premised on various speculative assumptions, which undermined appellant’s request. Id. Further, the court reasoned, appellant had ample opportunity to present evidence on the relevant Frye issues and indeed had done so, as he presented “virtually every aspect of animal DNA testing and [Dr.] Halverson’s methodology.” Id. Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the presentation of rebuttal testimony from Dr. Marsh. Moreover, appellant fails to assert the court abused its discretion; he only argues the court’s ruling was error. See Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 726 (Pa. 2013) (abuse of discretion not found based on mere error of judgment, but rather where ruling is manifestly unreasonable or result of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will). Appellant next argues the PCRA court erred in preventing him from recalling trial counsel Timothy Lucas at the PCRA hearings to impeach his credibility. Noting there was no evidence of bias from Lucas as a result of his federal-tax-evasion charges and his [J-49-2013] - 62 guilty plea had no connection to appellant’s PCRA proceedings, the Commonwealth contends the PCRA court properly denied appellant’s motion to recall Lucas. Lucas was charged June 18, 2010, and pled guilty to federal income tax evasion August 4, 2010. Yet, he testified at the PCRA hearings in August, 2009.27 The PCRA court denied appellant’s motion to recall Lucas, concluding his offense did not constitute crimen falsi because he still had not been sentenced as of the date of appellant’s motion and the court’s ruling. PCRA Court Opinion and Order, 12/30/10, at 1-2. The court determined that allowing appellant to recall Lucas would “condone a fishing expedition[,]” as it was unreasonable to conclude he would attempt to distort his PCRA testimony to curry favor with the Commonwealth, which is not involved in federal tax investigation. Id., at 2. Further, the court reasoned, appellant submitted Lucas’ plea agreement, which was devoid of evidence he would receive a lesser sentence for cooperation with law enforcement. Id. We conclude the PCRA court did not abuse its discretion in preventing appellant from recalling Lucas. Appellant alleges the PCRA court erred in failing to strike a “PowerPoint presentation” slide in a Commonwealth exhibit, which referenced a statement made by Ms. Treiber, Jessica’s mother, that she planned to seek child support from appellant. The Commonwealth submits the admission of evidence in PCRA proceedings lies within the sole discretion of the PCRA court, and it acted within that discretion in denying the motion. The court concluded it was not necessary to strike the statement because Ms. Treiber testified at trial that she told appellant she planned to seek child-support payments and it would determine what weight, if any, to give to the information. PCRA 27As previously noted, the court held ten evidentiary hearings from July 7, 2009, to August 4, 2011. [J-49-2013] - 63 Court Order, 12/13/10, at 1. Although appellant included this allegation of error in his Rule 1925(b) statement, he offers no argument as to that issue. Accordingly, his claim is waived for failure to develop it in any meaningful fashion. See Walter, at 566 (holding claims waived for failure to develop them). The order of the PCRA court is hereby affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished. Mr. Justice Baer, Madame Justice Todd and Mr. Justice Stevens join the opinion.