Court Opinion

ID: 9881651
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-03 16:17:31.530428+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:14:01.224200
License: Public Domain

J-S17036-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                            :        PENNSYLVANIA
                      Appellee              :
                                            :
               v.                           :
                                            :
 JOSEPH ANTHONY MARKIJOHN, II               :
                                            :
                      Appellant             :        No. 489 WDA 2022

               Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered April 22, 2022
               In the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County
              Criminal Division at No(s): CP-37-CR-0000445-2015

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., OLSON, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.:                            FILED: OCTOBER 3, 2023

      Appellant, Joseph Anthony Markijohn, II, appeals from the order entered

in the Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas, which dismissed his first

petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), at 42

Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.

      A prior panel of this Court set forth the relevant facts of this case as

follows:

           On December 28, 2014, Kaitlyn Kerezsi and Appellant, her
           boyfriend at the time, had planned to visit his friend, Joseph
           Pagley (the “Decedent”), in New Castle. The Decedent
           supplied Appellant with marijuana. However, when Ms.
           Kerezsi woke that morning, Appellant informed her that only
           he would be traveling to New Castle. He packed a bag with
           a change of clothes and left in his green Jeep Cherokee
           around 1 p.m.

           Between 5:30 and 6:00 p.m., wearing a new sweatshirt,
           Appellant returned from New Castle with five pounds of
           marijuana and a large amount of cash. The pair went to a
J-S17036-23

       local Walmart, purchased a safe and glass jars, returned
       home, and proceeded to repackage the marijuana.
       Appellant began selling this marijuana to friends the
       following day.

       This was more marijuana than Ms. Kerezsi had seen
       previously in Appellant’s possession. When asked about the
       large quantity, Appellant suggested to Ms. Kerezsi that he
       and the Decedent had robbed a rival marijuana growing
       operation. According to Appellant, he had used a small
       pistol to shoot a lock on the shed containing the marijuana.
       Appellant told Ms. Kerezsi that he disposed of the gun and
       that she should deny he had possessed one.

       Earlier that day, the Decedent informed his girlfriend,
       Shayna Magno, that he had plans to meet someone from
       out of town at his house and that, therefore, she had to
       leave. Ms. Magno left, met a friend, and began using heroin.
       Apparently, the Decedent concluded that Ms. Magno was
       using heroin, which precipitated an argument between the
       two via text messaging and cellphone calls. However, at
       3:32 p.m., the Decedent’s phone was turned off, and Ms.
       Magno had no further contact with him.

       Sometime between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m., Appellant met the
       Decedent at the Roupp residence. Surveillance video later
       recovered from a local business showed Appellant’s Jeep
       Cherokee following the Decedent’s vehicle in the direction
       of the Decedent’s house at 3:44 p.m.

       Over the next several hours, Ms. Magno tried repeatedly but
       unsuccessfully to contact the Decedent. Eventually, at
       10:40 p.m., Ms. Magno was able to reach a mutual friend,
       David Roupp.      She inquired as to the Decedent’s
       whereabouts, but Mr. Roupp had not seen or heard from
       him.

       Ms. Magno returned to the Decedent’s house. His vehicle
       was parked outside; the front door was unlocked; however,
       the home was unlit, and he did not appear to be there.
       Unnerved by this, Ms. Magno again called Mr. Roupp, who
       came to the house. Upon searching the basement, Mr.
       Roupp discovered the Decedent’s dead body.

                                  -2-
J-S17036-23

       An investigation ensued. Police recovered three .25 caliber
       shell casings in the basement surrounding the Decedent’s
       body. In addition, an autopsy determined that the cause of
       his death was three gunshot wounds to the head, and the
       manner of death was homicide. Each of the three .25 caliber
       slugs recovered from his head had been fired from the same
       weapon.

       Although he would later deny it, Appellant possessed a .25
       caliber pistol. Appellant’s mother gave him such a pistol for
       protection sometime in 2014. Ms. Kerezsi observed a small
       pistol hidden underneath Appellant’s mattress. In addition,
       Mr. Roupp had witnessed Appellant threaten another friend
       with a small, black pistol during an argument. Finally,
       Appellant had posted pictures of a .25 caliber pistol on social
       media. Following his arrest, Appellant directed Ms. Kerezsi
       to shut down his social media accounts, and she complied.

       On December 30, 2014, Terrance Albright, a random
       passer-by, found an iPhone under a guardrail close to the
       Smolen-Gulf Bridge in Ashtabula, Ohio, where Appellant
       resided. Guessing the manufacturer’s default password and
       unlocking the phone, Mr. Albright learned that it belonged
       to the Decedent. He contacted the Decedent’s father, who
       in turn contacted the police. The bridge is approximately
       3.5 miles from Appellant’s home and 85 miles from the
       Decedent’s house.

       On December 31, 2014, executing a search warrant on
       Appellant’s home, police discovered and seized several
       pounds of marijuana. The marijuana was stored in jars
       labelled “Blue Dream” and “Fu Dawg.” Text messages
       exchanged between Appellant and the Decedent, prior to
       their meeting, referenced these particular brands. Further,
       notwithstanding his story of the rival robbery, Appellant
       acknowledged that he had been present in the Decedent’s
       house as late as 4 p.m. on the date of the murder and that
       the marijuana seized from his home had come from the
       Decedent’s house.

       Police arrested Appellant and charged him with murder and
       robbery. …

Commonwealth      v.   Markijohn,    No.    827   WDA     2019,   unpublished

                                    -3-
J-S17036-23

memorandum at 1-5 (Pa.Super. filed January 22, 2020) (internal citations and

footnotes omitted), appeal denied, 661 Pa. 484, 236 A.3d 1052 (2020).

      A jury convicted Appellant of first-degree murder and robbery.      On

December 5, 2018, the trial court sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment.

This Court affirmed Appellant’s judgment of sentence on January 22, 2020,

and our Supreme Court denied Appellant’s petition for allowance of appeal on

June 29, 2020. See id.

      Appellant filed a timely PCRA petition on December 18, 2020. The court

conducted hearings on May 25, 2021, September 9, 2021, and November 1,

2021. The PCRA court summarized the testimony from the PCRA hearings as

follows:

           [On May 25, 2021, Appellant] presented the testimony of
           his trial counsel, Steven Valsamidis, Esquire, concerning
           numerous aspects of his representation of [Appellant].
           Attorney Valsamidis recalled having conversations about
           retaining a private investigator. However, it was unlikely a
           private investigator would have been able to locate the grow
           shed robbed by [Appellant] and Decedent as [Appellant]
           could not recall the route they traveled to get to that
           location. Attorney Valsamidis believed that could be used
           by the Commonwealth to damage [Appellant’s] credibility if
           he hired a private investigator and they were unable to
           locate the shed. At the conclusion of that conversation with
           [Appellant], Attorney Valsamidis asked [Appellant] if the
           private investigator would find the grow shed and if he
           wanted to hire a private investigator. [Appellant] remained
           silent and Attorney Valsamidis understood that to mean he
           did not wish to hire a private investigator at that time.
           Attorney Valsamidis also did not believe hiring a private
           investigator to investigate Ms. Magno would have been
           productive as the defense was based upon someone
           associated with the grow shed being the perpetrator and Ms.
           Magno was not involved with that operation. Although,

                                      -4-
J-S17036-23

       Attorney Valsamidis acknowledged Ms. Magno was a person
       of interest in the homicide based upon the testimony of one
       of the Pennsylvania State Troopers.

       Attorney Valsamidis also explained he did not feel it was
       necessary to file a notice of alibi defense as Defendant’s
       version of events left the possibility he was in New Castle at
       the time of the homicide. Under those circumstances,
       Attorney Valsamidis did not believe an alibi defense or
       instruction to the jury was necessary.

       [Appellant’s] counsel inquired as to why Attorney Valsamidis
       did not file a motion in limine as it pertained to [Appellant’s]
       lip tattoo of the word “Kill.” It was his opinion that tattoo is
       easily explainable because [Appellant] was a Marine years
       earlier and he believed it demonstrated desperation on
       behalf of the Commonwealth to emphasize the tattoo. In
       relation to a prior incident in which another individual
       became upset at [Appellant’s] mother’s residence and
       began destroying her bedroom causing [Appellant] to
       brandish a .25 caliber pistol, Attorney Valsamidis did not file
       an objection as there was no basis to do so because the
       Commonwealth was introducing it for the legitimate purpose
       of demonstrating [Appellant] possessed a firearm to
       impeach his prior statement to the Troopers denying
       possession of a firearm. At the time that was presented to
       the jury, the Commonwealth did not know whether
       [Appellant] was going to testify.

       When questioned about calling character witnesses to testify
       on [Appellant’s] behalf, Attorney Valsamidis indicated they
       attempted to locate witnesses. He had conversations with
       several of [Appellant’s] friends from his time in the military
       about appearing at trial, but they had not been around
       [Appellant] for an extended period of time. [Appellant]
       identified several potential character witnesses and Attorney
       Valsamidis recalled having conversations with at least two
       of them. He then explained two of the witnesses he spoke
       with had not been in [Appellant’s] company for a “significant
       period of time”. In addition, Attorney Valsamidis recalled
       one of those individuals, Hunter Bernard, left a message for
       Attorney Valsamidis indicating he was unavailable for trial.
       Attorney Valsamidis did not subpoena Mr. Bernard based
       upon his belief subpoenaing a witness who is supposed to

                                    -5-
J-S17036-23

       be favorable but is not cooperative often will not result in
       favorable testimony.

       Another hearing was scheduled for September 9, 2021, to
       allow for further testimony to be presented. On that date,
       [Appellant] testified concerning his statement to Troopers
       Gustafson and Birckbichler on December 31, 2014.
       [Appellant] admitted he lied to them about possessing the
       firearm because he feared he would get into trouble for
       providing it to Decedent.         Following the interview,
       [Appellant] was arrested and transported to Lawrence
       County,    Pennsylvania.       Initially, [Appellant]     was
       represented by Lawrence J. Keith, Esquire, and Dennis A.
       Eliseo, Esquire, of the Lawrence County Public Defender’s
       Office; however, [Appellant] wanted a change of counsel
       due to not receiving responses to his inquiries. The [c]ourt
       then appointed John J. Bongivengo, Esquire, to represent
       [Appellant], who [Appellant] never actually met because he
       privately retained Attorney Valsamidis. They thoroughly
       discussed the events of December 28, 2014, which included
       [Appellant’s] reasoning for providing the firearm to
       Decedent. [Appellant] indicated he lied about it to the
       Troopers as Decedent had a felony conviction and it is illegal
       to provide a firearm to a convicted felon. [Appellant] also
       indicated Attorney Valsamidis was aware of his description
       concerning the location of the shed he and Decedent broke
       into and from which they stole marijuana.

       According to [Appellant], he and Attorney Valsamidis never
       discussed hiring a private investigator or about cell phone
       technology.     Conversely, they spoke about potential
       character witnesses and, according to [Appellant], he
       provided Attorney Valsamidis with the names Hunter
       Bernard, Coralyn Thompson and Edward Crawford, II.
       [Appellant] stated those individuals were willing to testify
       on his behalf as character witnesses.

       Another hearing was held on November 1, 2021, to permit
       [Appellant] to present the testimony of two of his proposed
       character witnesses, Edward Crawford, II, and Coralyn
       Thompson. Mr. Crawford testified he has never been
       convicted of a felony or any crime of dishonesty. He is
       familiar with [Appellant] as they previously worked together
       at Ringer Screen Print in approximately 2013. Their families

                                   -6-
J-S17036-23

        were friends and [Appellant] used to “hang out” at his house
        when they were younger. Mr. Crawford and [Appellant]
        would often socialize after work until [Appellant] was
        arrested for Decedent’s homicide. Eventually, [Appellant’s]
        mother, Anna Dixon, contacted Mr. Crawford to ask him to
        testify on [Appellant’s] behalf as a character witness, but he
        did not recall receiving a telephone call from Attorney
        Valsamidis. Mr. Crawford testified he was ready, willing and
        able to testify to [Appellant’s] good character at trial.
        However, Mr. Crawford was never subpoenaed by Attorney
        Valsamidis to appear at trial. On cross-examination, Mr.
        Crawford stated he probably would not have traveled here
        to testify at trial as “this is all nervous to me, I guess, you
        know, nerve wracking....” He also explained he would have
        been upset if he were compelled to testify at trial. Mr.
        Crawford indicated he was in [Appellant’s] presence when
        he used and sold marijuana.

        Ms. Thompson also testified at that hearing and explained
        she has been a friend of [Appellant] since [Appellant] was
        in the first grade. The last time she saw [Appellant] was in
        2013 at her brother’s funeral, but they kept in touch through
        regular communications via the telephone. They lost touch
        briefly then [Appellant] began contacting her by telephone
        during his incarceration.        As trial was approaching,
        [Appellant] and Ms. Dixon asked Ms. Thompson if she would
        be willing to be a character witness for [Appellant].
        Attorney Valsamidis did not contact Ms. Thompson
        concerning her willingness to testify at trial. Ms. Thompson
        indicated she has not been convicted of any felonies or
        crimes of dishonesty. She stated she was ready, willing and
        able to testify on [Appellant’s] behalf as a character witness.
        On cross-examination, Ms. Thompson testified she did not
        appear at trial because she was not compelled to do so but
        would have attended if she received a subpoena. She also
        indicated she knew [Appellant] was a marijuana user but did
        not know he dealt marijuana.

(PCRA Court Opinion, filed 5/20/22, at 8-12).

     On April 22, 2022, the PCRA court issued its order denying PCRA relief.

Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on April 28, 2022. The PCRA court

                                     -7-
J-S17036-23

subsequently ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors

complained of on appeal, and Appellant complied on May 12, 2022.

     Appellant raises the following nine issues on appeal:

        1. Whether the PCRA court erred by denying Appellant a
        new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel because
        trial counsel unreasonably failed to call character witnesses
        on Appellant’s behalf at trial?

        2. Whether the PCRA court erred by denying Appellant a
        new trial on the basis of ineffective assistance of trial
        counsel for failing to file a notice of alibi and pursue that
        defense at trial by requesting an alibi jury instruction?

        3. Whether the PCRA court erred in denying Appellant a new
        trial based on ineffective assistance of trial counsel because
        of trial counsel’s concessions (twice) during closing
        argument establishing the window of time when death
        occurred when the Commonwealth could not establish a
        time of death and said concessions contradicted the defense
        that Appellant was not the last person to see the decedent
        alive?

        4. Whether the PCRA court erred in denying Appellant a new
        trial for trial counsel’s failure to hire a private investigator
        to explore various issues crucial to preparing and presenting
        a defense at trial?

        5. Whether the PCRA court erred when it failed to grant
        Appellant a new trial based on ineffective assistance of
        counsel when trial counsel failed to file a motion in limine or
        object on record at trial to prejudicial evidence introduced
        by the Commonwealth?

        6. Whether the PCRA court erred by denying Appellant relief
        in the form of a new trial for its findings of facts are not
        supported by the record and its conclusions a product of
        legal error, on the issue of trial counsel’s testimony that
        decedent’s killer(s) followed Appellant home and planted a
        cell phone, when no such theory or evidence was ever
        presented at trial?

                                     -8-
J-S17036-23

         7. Whether PCRA counsel [was] ineffective for failing to
         properly preserve issues related to DNA testing of physical
         evidence in his concise statement of matters complained of
         on appeal?

         8. Whether the [PCRA] court erred in not appointing an
         expert to conduct DNA testing on the cigarette butt found
         at the crime scene?

         9. Whether this Court should remand the case to the [PCRA]
         court to allow DNA testing of a cigarette butt pursuant to 42
         Pa.C.S.A. § 9543.1(d)(1)?

(Appellant’s Brief at 1-2).

      Our standard of review of the denial of a PCRA petition is limited to

examining whether the record evidence supports the court’s determination

and whether the court’s decision is free of legal error. Commonwealth v.

Ford, 947 A.2d 1251 (Pa.Super. 2008), appeal denied, 598 Pa. 779, 959 A.2d

319 (2008). This Court grants great deference to the findings of the PCRA

court if the record contains any support for those findings. Commonwealth

v. Boyd, 923 A.2d 513 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal denied, 593 Pa. 754, 932

A.2d 74 (2007). If the record supports a post-conviction court’s credibility

determination, it is binding on the appellate court.      Commonwealth v.

Dennis, 609 Pa. 442, 17 A.3d 297 (2011).

      After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the

applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Craig Cox, we

conclude Appellants first through sixth issues on appeal merit no relief. The

PCRA court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of those

claims. (See PCRA Court Opinion at 13-21, 23-24) (finding: (1) trial counsel

                                     -9-
J-S17036-23

had reasonable basis not to call character witness who was unwilling or

reluctant to testify, and counsel had reasonable basis not to call witness whom

he was unaware of at time of trial and who did not know Appellant well in any

event; (2) counsel was not ineffective for declining to file notice of alibi when

Appellant testified he was with Decedent on day of homicide; timeframe of

events set forth by Appellant did not render it impossible for him to have been

with Decedent at time Decedent was killed; thus, alibi instruction would not

have been appropriate; (3) counsel had reasonable basis for arguing that time

of Decedent’s death was between 3:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. because such

timeline aligned with defense theory of case that perpetrators followed

Appellant after murder to Ashtabula, Ohio, where they disposed of Decedent’s

cell phone; (4) counsel was not ineffective for failing to hire private

investigator to locate grow shed where Appellant was unable to provide

adequate explanation of location of grow shed, which could have called into

question Appellant’s version of events from day of murder; further, Appellant

did not establish how investigation into Ms. Magno and her associates would

be helpful to his defense; (5) counsel was not ineffective for failing to object

to or file motion in limine concerning evidence of Appellant’s lip tattoo reading

“KILL” or his Twitter post about shooting guns, where evidence was introduced

to impeach Appellant’s testimony that he was peaceful and loving “hippie”;

counsel also acted reasonably in failing to object to testimony concerning

unrelated incident of Appellant brandishing firearm because Commonwealth

                                     - 10 -
J-S17036-23

introduced that testimony to show that Appellant had possessed firearm;

moreover, court gave curative instruction concerning this testimony (6) trial

counsel testified at PCRA hearing that defense presented at trial was

predicated upon involvement of owners of grow shed, and that Decedent’s

death was act of retribution for Appellant and Decedent robbing shed;

although Appellant now claims that trial counsel provided “false narrative”

about owners of shed occupying vehicle that followed Appellant to Ohio after

murder, Appellant was well aware of defense throughout trial and he testified

consistently with defense theory of case; PCRA court found trial counsel’s

testimony credible concerning defense strategy at trial based on testimony

and evidence of record). The record supports the PCRA court’s analysis of

Appellant’s first through sixth issues, and we affirm on the basis of the PCRA

court’s opinion concerning those claims of error. See Ford, supra. See also

Dennis, supra.

      In his seventh issue, Appellant raises a layered claim of ineffective

assistance of counsel. He argues that PCRA counsel was ineffective for failing

to include in the concise statement of errors complained of on appeal,

Appellant’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue DNA

testing of a cigarette butt found near Decedent’s body.              Appellant

acknowledges that PCRA counsel raised the issue of trial counsel’s

ineffectiveness on this ground in his PCRA petition, but Appellant insists PCRA

counsel was ineffective for failing to include this issue in his Rule 1925(b)

                                    - 11 -
J-S17036-23

statement, constituting waiver of the claim on appeal.1

       As to the underlying claim of trial counsel’s ineffectiveness, Appellant

argues that he smoked a different brand of cigarette than the one found near

Decedent’s body and that testing of the cigarette butt would reveal

exculpatory evidence of the identity of the true killer. Appellant contends trial

counsel had no reasonable basis for failing to seek DNA testing and counsel’s

refusal to pursue such testing prevented Appellant from establishing a third-

party culpability defense. Appellant concludes trial counsel was ineffective on

this basis, and PCRA counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve this claim

of error on appeal. We disagree.

       “Counsel     is   presumed     to   have     rendered   effective   assistance.”

Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 231 A.3d 855, 871 (Pa.Super. 2020), appeal

denied, 663 Pa. 418, 242 A.3d 908 (2020).

          [T]o establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a
          defendant must show, by a preponderance of the evidence,
          ineffective assistance of counsel which, in the circumstances
          of the particular case, so undermined the truth-determining
          process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence
          could have taken place. The burden is on the defendant to
          prove all three of the following prongs: (1) the underlying
          claim is of arguable merit; (2) that counsel had no
          reasonable strategic basis for his or her action or inaction;
          and (3) but for the errors and omissions of counsel, there is
____________________________________________

1 Appellant presented his claim of PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness at the first

opportunity to do so. We will review this claim based on our Supreme Court’s
decision in Commonwealth v. Bradley, ___ Pa. ___, ___ 261 A.3d 381, 400
(2021) (holding “that a PCRA petitioner may, after a PCRA court denies relief,
and after obtaining new counsel or acting pro se, raise claims of PCRA
counsel’s ineffectiveness at the first opportunity to do so, even if on appeal”).

                                           - 12 -
J-S17036-23

         a reasonable probability that the outcome             of   the
         proceedings would have been different.

Commonwealth v. Sandusky, 203 A.3d 1033, 1043 (Pa.Super. 2019),

appeal denied, 654 Pa. 568, 216 A.3d 1029 (2019) (internal citations and

quotation marks omitted).    The failure to satisfy any prong of the test for

ineffectiveness will cause the claim to fail. Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 612

Pa. 333, 30 A.3d 1111 (2011).

         The test for deciding whether counsel had a reasonable
         basis for his action or inaction is whether no competent
         counsel would have chosen that action or inaction, or, the
         alternative, not chosen, offered a significantly greater
         potential chance of success. Counsel’s decisions will be
         considered reasonable if they effectuated his client’s
         interests.   We do not employ a hindsight analysis in
         comparing trial counsel’s actions with other efforts he may
         have taken.

Commonwealth v. King, 259 A.3d 511, 520 (Pa.Super. 2021) (quoting

Sandusky, supra at 1043-44).

      “[I]t is axiomatic that [trial] counsel will not be considered ineffective

for failing to pursue meritless claims.” Commonwealth v. Rivera, 816 A.2d

282, 292 (Pa.Super. 2003), appeal denied, 573 Pa. 715, 828 A.2d 350 (2003)

(quoting Commonwealth v. Pursell, 555 Pa. 233, 724 A.2d 293, 304

(1999)). Consequently, “[p]ost-trial counsel will not be deemed ineffective

for failing to raise and preserve meritless challenges to the effectiveness of

trial counsel.” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Thuy, 623 A.2d 327, 335

(Pa.Super. 1993)).

      Instantly, the PCRA court evaluated Appellant’s claim of trial counsel’s

                                    - 13 -
J-S17036-23

ineffectiveness for not pursuing DNA testing.     In its opinion denying PCRA

relief, the court explained:

         [Trial counsel,] Attorney Valsamidis[,] did not believe it was
         prudent to test the Camel cigarette for DNA for fear it may
         contain [Appellant’s] DNA. Moreover, Attorney Valsamidis
         wanted to leave the door open to attack the lack of DNA
         testing of the Camel cigarette butt as part of the overarching
         narrative [that] the investigation conducted in this case was
         done in a “sloppy” manner. The [c]ourt recognizes the risks
         and benefits of testing the DNA on the Camel cigarette butt.
         Attorney Valsamidis made a reasonable decision to forego
         seeking a DNA expert concerning the cigarette butt in lieu
         of continuing the narrative [that] the investigators did not
         conduct a thorough investigation despite this being a
         homicide case. Plus, [Appellant] testified he smoked a
         different brand of cigarettes which supported his rendition
         of events that someone else killed Decedent and left the
         cigarette butt. The [c]ourt will not second guess Attorney
         Valsamidis’s trial strategy when his decisions had
         reasonable grounds contained within the record.

(PCRA Court Opinion, filed 4/22/22, at 23-24).

      The record supports the PCRA court’s analysis that trial counsel had a

reasonable basis not to pursue DNA testing of the cigarette butt. See Boyd,

supra. See also Dennis, supra. Trial counsel did not overlook the cigarette

butt as evidence; rather, he incorporated it into the defense strategy.

Although Appellant’s current counsel insists that the strategy employed was

wrong, we do not judge the reasonableness of trial counsel’s approach in

hindsight. See King, supra. As PCRA counsel cannot be deemed ineffective

for failing to preserve a meritless claim, we conclude that Appellant is not

entitled to relief on this layered claim of ineffectiveness. See Rivera, supra.

      In his final two issues, Appellant argues the PCRA court erred when it

                                     - 14 -
J-S17036-23

denied his motion for DNA testing,2 which Appellant filed during the pendency

of this appeal, on August 4, 2022. Because the order on appeal concerns the

denial of PCRA relief and not a ruling on Appellant’s August 4, 2022 motion,

any claims concerning this motion are not properly before us at this time.3

Accordingly, we affirm the order denying PCRA relief.

       Order affirmed.

DATE: 10/3/2023

____________________________________________

2 We note that although a motion for DNA testing “falls under the aegis” of

the PCRA, this Court has long differentiated between petitions for relief under
section 9534 of the PCRA and motions for DNA testing under section 9543.1
of the PCRA. Commonwealth v. Kunco, 173 A.3d 817, 823 (Pa.Super.
2017). A motion for DNA testing under section 9543.1 is not a PCRA petition,
“[r]ather, it allows for a convicted individual to first obtain DNA testing which
could then be used within a PCRA petition.” Commonwealth v. Tyler, 234
A.3d 750, 753 (Pa.Super. 2020) (citations and internal quotation marks
omitted). “[A]lthough the legislature placed section 9543.1 within the larger
statutory framework of the PCRA, the litigation of a motion for DNA testing is,
in substance, a wholly separate proceeding from litigation of a PCRA petition.”
Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

3 We note that, according to the docket entries, the PCRA court has not ruled

on Appellant’s August 4, 2022 motion. On August 12, 2022, Appellant filed a
motion in this Court to remand for DNA testing, which this Court denied on
August 29, 2022, without prejudice to Appellant’s right to argue any properly
preserved issues in his appellate brief. As the August 4, 2022 motion for DNA
testing is not properly before us and is still pending before the PCRA court, we
decline Appellant’s request for remand.

                                          - 15 -
                                                                                         Circulated 09/07/2023 01:33 PM

                  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                     :: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

                                         VS.                       :: LAWRENCE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

                    JOSEPH ANTHONY MARKIJOHN, II,                  :: CRIMINAL DIVISION

                                                 Defendant.        :: NO. 445 of 2015
                                                                                                                If'>
                                                                                                                -·-'
                                                                                                                -"

                                                        APPEARANCES

                  For The Commonwealth:                                 R Miller, Esq.
                                                               Jonathan R.
                                                               Lawrence County District Attorney                 --- .
                                                               430 Court Street
                                                                                16101
                                                               New Castle, PA 16101

                  For The Defendant:                           Christopher P. Lacich, Esquire
                                                               100 East Federal Street, Suite 600
                                                               Youngstown, OH 44503

                                                            OPINION

                  COX, J.
                  COX,J.                                                                            May 20, 2022

                             In the instant matter, the defendant Joseph Anthony Markijohn, II, filed a timely

                  Notice of Appeal on April 28, 2022, concerning the Order of Court and Opinion filed on

                  April 22, 2022, denying his Petition for Post-Conviction Relief ("PCRA"). On appeal,

                  Defendant contends this Court erred in failing to find his trial counsel was ineffective for

                  the following reasons:

                        I.      Failure to call character witnesses on behalf of Defendant;

                       ti.
                       II.      Failure to properly investigate alibi defense, file a notice of alibi defense and
                                request the Court provide the jury with an alibi instruction;

     53RD
     53D              Ill.      Counsel was ineffective when he conceded twice during his closing argument
   JUDICIAL                     the Decedent's death occurred between 3:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m.;
   pisTRCT
   DISTRICT

LAWRENCE COUNTY
 P£NN5YLVANJA
 PENNYLVANA
                      IV.       Failure to file a motion in limine or object at trial to the Commonwealth asking
                                about and then showing Defendant's lip tattoo which read "KILL";
                                                                                               "KILLn;

                       V.       Failure to file a motion in limine or object at trial to the Commonwealth
                                presenting testimony concerning a post on Defendant's Twitter page which
                                stated, "One day I'm finally going to be calm and l'lf
                                                                                   I'll be surrounded by shell
                                casings";

                      VI.       Failure to file a motion in limine or object at trial to testimony concerning a prior
                                incident in which Defendant pulled a firearm on a houseguest who took
                                umbrage at being prematurely awakened and started destroying his mother's
                                bedroom;
                                bedroom:

                     VI I.
                     VII.       Failure to hire an investigator to explore various issues crucial to preparing and
                                presenting a defense at trial;

                     VIII.
                     VIit.      Failure to admit and publish to the jury a photograph taken by Decedent's
                                girlfriend of Decedent's body and the voicemail Defendant left for Decedent
                                when he arrived in Ashtabula, Ohio; and

                      IX.       Defendant's trial counsel testified at the proceedings for Defendant's PCRA
                                Petition concerning a false narrative Defendant informed him the owners of the
                                shed he and the victim robbed killed the victim and followed Defendant to
                                Ashtabula, Ohio.

                             On December 28, 2014, Defendant and the decedent Joseph Pagley made plans,

                  so Defendant and his girlfriend Kaitlyn Kerezsi intended to drive from Ashtabula, Ohio, to

                  New Castle, Lawrence County. Pennsylvania. Defendant was going to obtain marijuana

                  from Decedent and pay Decedent a lump sum of money for a previous debt. On that day,

                  Defendant advised Ms. Kerezsi Decedent did not want her to accompany him even

                                                                                                      1 :00
                  though she went with him in the past. Defendant left his residence at approximately 1

                  p.m. and took a change of clothes with him, which he informed Ms. Kerezsi he was taking

                  them "just in case he got dirty".

                             Defendant arrived in New Castle and went to a residence occupied by Keith Roupp

                  o meet with Decedent at approximately 3:00 p.m. Defendant testified at trial he and
     53RD
     53R0
   JUDICIAL
   DISTRICT       Decedent then perpetrated a theft from a marijuana grow operation. They transported

LAWRENCE COUNTY
 PENNSYLYANtA.
 PENNSYLVANtA
                                                                   z2
                  the stolen marijuana to Decedent's residence and brought it to the basement. Once that

                  marijuana was stored, Decedent opened a safe and provided Defendant with five pounds

                  of marijuana. According to Defendant, they then went upstairs and Defendant wrote a

                  check in the amount of $8,200.00 as a promise to pay for the marijuana. That check was

                  discovered by law enforcement resting on top of the opened safe when Decedent's body

                  was discovered. Defendant explained he provided Decedent with a .25 caliber pistol for

                  his protection because they just robbed a grow operation and Defendant left to return

                  home to Ashtabula. Defendant testified he departed Decedent's residence at 4:00 p.m.

                  and returned to his home in Ashtabula at approximately 5:30 or 6:00 p.m. When he

                  arrived at his house, Defendant was wearing a different sweatshirt than he wore when he

                  left according to Ms. Kerezsi and she did not see him bring back a change of clothes.

                         Decedent's girlfriend, Shayna Magno, resided with Decedent but did not have a

                  key to enter as she was not allowed to be there alone due to her heroin addiction. On the

                  morning of December 28, 2014, Decedent informed her he was meeting someone from

                  out of town and she had to leave. As a result, Ms. Magno left Decedent's residence before

                  3:00 p.m. and she went to use heroin with an acquaintance. Decedent observed Ms.

                  Magno with the acquaintance, and he became angry which caused an argument between

                  the two of them via text messaging. They sent multiple texts to each other between 3:08

                  p.m. and 3:32 p.m. After that time, Ms. Magno attempted to send another text message

                  to Decedent, but his phone was turned off. Later that day, Ms. Magno sent Decedent a

                  text asking if she could come to his residence to hang out. but Decedent did not respond

                  to her. Ms. Magno then called Decedent twice in quick succession with no answer. Ms.
     53RD
     3RD
   JUDICIAL
   JuDC1AL        Magno called David Roupp at 6:30 p.m., who she would routinely contact when unable to
   DISTRICT

LAWRENCE COUNTY
 PENNSYLVANIA
                                                             3
                                          Raupp missed the call. Ms. Magno attempted to call Decedent
                  reach Decedent, but Mr. Roupp

                  at 6:31 p.m., 8:09 p.m., 8:13 p.m., 9:50 p.m. and twice in quick succession at 10:38 p.m.

                  At 10:40 p.m., Ms. Magno spoke with Mr. Roupp,
                                                          Raupp, who indicated he had not spoken with

                  Decedent since 2:00 p.m.

                         Ms. Magno decided to go to Decedent's residence to see if he was there. When

                  she arrived she observed Decedent's vehicle in the driveway. She then entered the

                  residence, which was unlocked. She walked around the house calling Decedent's name

                  with no response. However, she did not enter the basement because it was pitch black.

                  Ms. Magno went outside to smoke a cigarette and called Mr. Roupp to come to

                  Decedent's residence.     Upon his arrival, Mr. Roupp found Ms. Magno outside with

                  Decedent's dog.     He went inside to search for Decedent.        Eventually, Mr. Roupp

                  discovered Decedent in the basement and he instructed Ms. Magno to call 911, which

                             11:.26
                  she did at 11 :26 p.m. Ms. Magno was screaming when speaking with the 911 operator,

                  who asked to speak with someone else, so Mr. Roupp got on the phone. The operator

                  instructed Mr. Roupp to check to see if the body was cold and it was. Ms. Magno then

                  took a photograph of the body and they waited for police to arrive.

                         Investigator Harry S. Gustafson, Jr., of the Pennsylvania State Police collected

                  surveillance video from Preston Motors, which was near Decedent's residence.         An

                  employee for Preston Motors indicated the timestamp on the video would show seven

                  minutes later than it actually was. At 3:44 p.m., the Preston Motors surveillance video

                  revealed Defendant's vehicle following Decedent's vehicle driving down Kenneth Avenue

                  towards Decedent's residence. In addition, Decedent's cell phone records indicate his
     53RD
     53m0
   JUDICIAL       last incoming call received was from Keith Roupp at 3:09 p.m. and the last text message
   DISTRICT

LAWRENCE COUNTY
 PENNSYLVANIA
                                                              4
                  sent from his phone was to Ms. Magno at 3:32 p.m. Decedent's phone also received and

                  read 8 iMessages between 2:33 p.m. and 3:58 p.m.

                         Bullet fragments removed from Decedent's body were found to be .25 caliber and

                  law enforcement discovered three .25 caliber casings in Decedent's basement. Prior to

                  December 28, 2014, Defendant possessed a .25 caliber pistol as Ms. Kerezsi saw the

                  firearm a week prior under his mattress at Defendant's residence in Ashtabula, Ohio. In

                  the event anyone asked about the firearm, Defendant informed Ms. Kerezsi to say they

                  never had a firearm and he stated he "threw
                                                       uthrew it". Defendant did not explain to Ms. Kerezsi

                  where he threw the firearm.

                         Defendant and Ms. Kerezsi then repackaged the marijuana and stored it.

                  Defendant engaged in reselling and distributing the marijuana to five friends. Prior to

                  December 28, 2014, Defendant did not sell large amounts of marijuana as the largest

                  amount Ms. Kerezsi saw him possess was an ounce. Defendant testified he would be

                  given up to two pounds at a time. Defendant sold the marijuana to Brian Westbrook and

                  Zach McClung, who each testified they never saw Defendant with large quantities of

                  marijuana to sell.

                         On December 30, 2014, Terrance Albright got into an argument with his girlfriend

                  and went for a walk to cool down. He drove to Smolen Bridge in Ashtabula and began

                   alking. He discovered a cell phone under a guardrail and he guessed the password of

                  0000 which was correct. It was Decedent's missing cell phone and Mr. Albright contacted

                  Decedent's father to tell him he found the phone. Decedent's phone was discovered 3.5

                  miles from Defendant's residence and 85 miles from Decedent's residence.
     53RD
     53mD
   JUDICIAL
   DISTRICT

LAWRENCE COUNTY
 PENNSYLVANIA
 PENNSYLVANIA
                                                             5
                         A warrant was executed on Defendant's residence, which led to the discovery and

                  seizure of several pounds of marijuana. Commonwealth's Exhibit 73 was admitted at trial

                  which depicted some of the jars of marijuana which Ms. Kerezsi and Defendant packaged

                  when he returned to Ashtabula. Some of the jars were labeled "Blue Dream" and "Fu

                  Dawg".    Commonwealth's Exhibit 59 was admitted during the testimony of Trooper

                  Gustafson. It depicts the text messages received and sent by Decedent on December

                  28, 2014. The exhibit shows Decedent received a text at 2:31 p.m., prior to meeting with

                  Defendant, which states: "Need to c u im ready for tthem
                                                                      hem 2 zippo of Blue dream". Decedent

                  then agreed to meet the sender of this message. This was entirely before Defendant and

                  Decedent met on December 28th. Commonwealth's Exhibit 57 also was admitted during

                  the testimony of Trooper Gustafson. Among other things, it depicts an iMessage sent

                  from Decedent's phone, asking the question "How's that fu dawg hitting?" Defendant

                  admitted the marijuana at his residence was the same Decedent sold, although he said

                  he purchased it rather than stole it.

                         On December 31, 2014, Defendant was interviewed by Trooper Gustafson and

                  Trooper Chris Birckbichler at the Ashtabula County Sheriffs Office.           Defendant

                  acknowledged he met Decedent at Mr. Roupp's residence on December 28, 2014, and

                  he received two ounces of marijuana from Decedent, which was untrue as he returned to

                   shtabula with five pounds of marijuana. Defendant initially provided the Troopers with

                  an inaccurate recitation of the route he used to return home from New Castle, but changed

                  his story when confronted with the possibility the Troopers would check surveillance

                   ideos. Defendant also was untruthful when he informed them he did not possess aa
     530
     53RO
   JUDICIAL
   oisrRICT
   DISTRICT

LAWRENCE COUNTY
  EN4sYLVANIA
 PENNSVL.VANJA
                                                             6
                  firearm despite having been in possession of the .25 caliber pistol which he posted about

                  on lnstagram. Following that interview, Defendant was arrested.

                          On July 6, 2015, the Commonwealth filed an Information charging Defendant with

                                    1, Robbery-Inflicts Serious Bodily lnjury2 Theft
                                                                       Injury,
                           Homicide',
                  Criminal Homicide                                           ,      by Unlawful Taking or

                                      Property?3 and Receiving Stolen Property'.
                  Disposition-Movable Property                        Property4.           Defendant's trial

                  commenced on October 22, 2018, and concluded on October 26, 2018, which resulted in

                  a jury convicting Defendant on the charges of Murder of the First Degree and Robbery.

                  On December 5, 2018, Defendant was sentenced to a term of incarceration for the

                  remainder of his natural life for the charge of Murder of the First Degree and a term of

                  incarceration of not less than six (6) years nor more than twenty (20) years for the charge

                  of Robbery.

                          Defendant filed a Motion for Post-Sentence Relief on December 13, 2018,

                  consisting of a Motion for New Trial and/or Judgment of Acquittal, Motion in Arrest of

                  Judgment, Motion for Appointment of Counsel and a Motion to File Supplemental

                  Authority and/or Additional Grounds for Relief. On the same date, the Court granted the

                  request to file a Motion for Supplemental Authority and/or Additional Grounds for Relief

                  and the appearance of Defendant's trial counsel, Steven Valsamidis, Esquire, was

                    ithdrawn.        The Court also appointed Dennis W. Mccurdy,
                                                                        McCurdy, Esquire, to represent

                  Defendant. On May 10, 2019, the Court filed an Order of Court denying the remaining

                  portions of Defendant's Motion for Post-Sentence Relief.      An Opinion explaining the

                  Court's rationale for denying Defendant's Motion was filed on May 24, 2019. Defendant

     53RD         1'18Pa.C.S.A.  5
                     18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2501(a).
   JUDICIAL       2 18 Pa.C.S.A. §
                                 $ 3701(a)(1)(i).
                                   3701(a)(1)().
   DISTRICT       3
                  318  Pa.C.S.A § 3921(a).
                    18 Pa.C.S.A.
                      Pa.CS.A §5 3925(a).
                   18 Pa.C.S.A.
LAWRENCE COUNTY
 PENNSYLVANIA                                                 7
                  filed aa timely
                  filed           Notice of
                           timely Notice of Appeal
                                            Appeal to
                                                    to the
                                                        the Superior
                                                            Superior Court
                                                                     Court and
                                                                           and aa Concise
                                                                                  Concise Statement
                                                                                          Statement of
                                                                                                    of Errors
                                                                                                       Errors

                             of on
                  Complained of
                  Complained    on Appeal
                                   Appeal on June
                                             June 4,
                                                  4, 2019.
                                                     2019. The
                                                           The Superior
                                                               Superior Court
                                                                        Court affirmed
                                                                              affirmed this
                                                                                        this Court's
                                                                                             Court's

                  decision to
                  decision to deny
                              deny Defendant's
                                   Defendant's Motion
                                               Motion for
                                                      for Post-Sentence
                                                          Post-Sentence Relief
                                                                        Relief by Memorandum Opinion
                                                                               by Memorandum Opinion

                  filed on
                  filed on January 22, 2020.
                           January 22, 2020. Defendant
                                             Defendant filed
                                                       filed aa Petition
                                                                Petition for
                                                                         for Allowance
                                                                             Allowance of
                                                                                       of Appeal
                                                                                          Appeal to
                                                                                                 to the
                                                                                                    the

                               Supreme Court,
                  Pennsylvania Supreme
                  Pennsylvania         Court, which
                                              which was
                                                    was denied
                                                        denied on
                                                               on June
                                                                  June 29,
                                                                       29, 2020.
                                                                           2020.

                        Attorney Mccurdy
                        Attorney         then filed
                                 Mccurdy then filed aa Motion
                                                       Motion to
                                                              to Withdraw
                                                                 Withdraw Representation
                                                                          Representation on
                                                                                         on July
                                                                                            July 9, 2020,
                                                                                                 9, 2020,

                  which was granted on the same
                  which                    same date. The Court
                                                          Court appointed
                                                                appointed Christopher
                                                                          Christopher P.
                                                                                      P. Lacich,
                                                                                         Lacich,

                           to represent
                  Esquire, to
                  Esquire,    represent Defendant
                                        Defendant for
                                                  for future proceedings.           subsequently filed aa
                                                             proceedings. Defendant subsequently

                  Motion to
                  Motion to Restore
                            Restore Direct
                                    Direct Appeal
                                           Appeal Rights
                                                  Rights Nunc
                                                         Nunc Pro
                                                              Pro Tune on August
                                                                  Tune on        28, 2020,
                                                                          August 28, 2020, which was

                            by Order
                  withdrawn by Order of Court
                                        Court filed on September 8, 2020.
                                                                    2020. Defendant
                                                                          Defendant filed
                                                                                    filed the current

                  PCRA Petition on December
                  PCRA             December 18,
                                            18, 2020, raising
                                                      raising various
                                                              various claims
                                                                      claims of ineffective
                                                                                ineffective assistance of
                                                                                                       of

                  his trial and
                  his       and appellate
                                appellate counsel.   Next, Defendant filed
                                                                     filed a Motion
                                                                             Motion for Appointment of

                                                       Status Conference on December 18, 2020, and the
                                           Request for Status
                  Investigator/Experts and Request

                  Court filed an Order on January 8, 2021, scheduling this matter for a Status Conference

                              1, 2021. The Motion for Appointment of Investigator/Experts was held
                  on February 1,                                                              held in

                  abeyance. Following that conference, a hearing was scheduled on Defendant's PCRA

                  Petition for May 25, 2021.

                        On that date, Defendant presented the testimony of his trial counsel, Steven

                   alsamidis, Esquire, concerning numerous aspects of his representation of Defendant.
                  Valsamidis,

                   ttorney Valsamidis recalled having conversations about retaining a private investigator.

                  However, it was unlikely a private investigator would have been able to locate the grow

                  shed robbed by Defendant and Decedent as Defendant could not recall the route they
     53m0
     53RD
   JUDICIAL
                  raveled to get to that location. Attorney Valsamidis believed that could be used by the
   DIsTICT
   DISTRICT

LAWRENCE COUNTY
 PENNSYLVANIA
                                                              8
                  Commonwealth to damage Defendant's credibility if he hired a private investigator and

                  they were unable to locate the shed.         At the conclusion of that conversation with

                  Defendant, Attorney Valsamidis asked Defendant if the private investigator would find the

                  grow shed and if he wanted to hire a private investigator. Defendant remained silent and

                  Attorney Valsamidis understood that to mean he did not wish to hire a private investigator

                  at that time. Attorney Valsamidis also did not believe hiring a private investigator to

                  investigate Ms. Magno would have been productive as the defense was based upon

                  someone associated with the grow shed being the perpetrator and Ms. Magno was not

                                                                   Vatsamidis acknowledged Ms. Magno
                  involved with that operation. Although, Attorney Valsamidis

                  was a person of interest in the homicide based upon the testimony of one of the

                  Pennsylvania State Troopers.

                           Attorney Valsamidis also explained he did not feel it was necessary to file a notice

                  of alibi defense as Defendant's version of events left the possibility he was in New Castle

                  at the time of the homicide. Under those circumstances, Attorney Valsamidis did not

                  believe an alibi defense or instruction to the jury was necessary.

                           Defendant's counsel inquired as to why Attorney Valsamidis did not file a motion

                  in limine as it pertained to Defendant's lip tattoo of the word "Kill". It was his opinion that

                  tattoo is easily explainable because Defendant was a Marine years earlier and he

                  believed it demonstrated desperation on behalf of the Commonwealth to emphasize the

                  attoo.    In relation to a prior incident in which another individual became upset at

                  Defendant's mother's residence and began destroying her bedroom causing Defendant

                  o brandish a .25 caliber pistol, Attorney Valsamidis did not file an objection as there was
     53RD
   JUDICIAL       no basis to do so because the Commonwealth was introducing it for the legitimate
   DISTRICT

LAWRENCE COUNTY
 PENNSYLVANIA
                                                                9
                  purpose of demonstrating Defendant possessed a firearm to impeach his prior statement

                  to the Troopers denying possession of a firearm. At the time that was presented to the

                  ·ury, the Commonwealth did not know whether Defendant was going to testify.

                        When questioned about calling character witnesses to testify on Defendant's

                  behalf, Attorney Valsamidis indicated they attempted to locate witnesses.         He had

                  conversations with several of Defendant's friends from his time in the military about

                  appearing at trial, but they had not been around Defendant for an extended period of time.

                  Defendant identified several potential character witnesses and Attorney Valsamidis

                  recalled having conversations with at least two of them. He then explained two of the

                  witnesses he spoke with had not been in Defendant's company for a "significant period of

                  time". In addition, Attorney Valsamidis recalled one of those individuals, Hunter Bernard,

                  left a message for Attorney Valsamidis indicating he was unavailable for trial.   Attorney

                  Valsamidis did not subpoena Mr. Bernard based upon his belief subpoenaing a witness

                  who is supposed to be favorable but is not cooperative often will not result in favorable

                  testimony.

                        Another hearing was scheduled for September 9, 2021, to allow for further

                  testimony to be presented. On that date, Defendant testified concerning his statement to

                  Troopers Gustafson and Birckbichler on December 31, 2014. Defendant admitted he lied

                  to them about possessing the firearm because he feared he would get into trouble for

                  providing it to Decedent.     Following the interview, Defendant was arrested and

                  ransported to Lawrence County, Pennsylvania. Initially, Defendant was represented by

                  Lawrence J. Keith, Esquire, and Dennis A
                                                         A. Eliseo, Esquire, of the Lawrence County Public
     531'10
     53D
   JUOICIAL
   JUDICIAL
                  Defender's Office; however, Defendant wanted a change of counsel due to not receiving
   OISTRICT
   DISTRICT

LAWRENCE COUNTY
 PENNSYLVANIA
                                                             10
                  responses to his inquiries. The Court then appointed John J. Bongivengo, Esquire, to

                  represent Defendant, who Defendant never actually met because he privately retained

                  Attorney Valsamidis. They thoroughly discussed the events of December 28, 2014, which

                  included Defendant's reasoning for providing the firearm to Decedent.         Defendant

                  indicated he lied about it to the Troopers as Decedent had aa felony conviction and it is

                  illegal to provide a firearm to a convicted felon.   Defendant also indicated Attorney

                  Valsamidis was aware of his description concerning the location of the shed he and

                  Decedent broke into and from which they stole marijuana.

                         According to Defendant, he and Attorney Valsamidis never discussed hiring aa

                  private investigator or about cell phone technology.     Conversely, they spoke about

                  potential character witnesses and, according to Defendant, he provided Attorney

                  Valsamidis with the names Hunter Bernard, Coralyn Thompson and Edward Crawford, II.

                  Defendant stated those individuals were willing to testify on his behalf as character

                  witnesses.

                        Another hearing was held on November 1, 2021, to permit Defendant to present

                  the testimony of two of his proposed character witnesses, Edward Crawford, II,
                                                                                             11, and

                  Coralyn Thompson. Mr. Crawford testified he has never been convicted of aa felony or

                  any crime of dishonesty. He is familiar with Defendant as they previously worked together

                  at Ringer Screen Print in approximately 2013. Their families were friends and Defendant

                  used to "hang out" at his house when they were younger. Mr. Crawford and Defendant

                  would often socialize after work until Defendant was arrested for Decedent's homicide.

                  Eventually, Defendant's mother, Anna Dixon, contacted Mr. Crawford to ask him to testify
     53RD
   JUDICIAL       on Defendant's behalf as a character witness, but he did not recall receiving a telephone
   DISTRICT

LAWRENCE COUNTY
 ,-CNNSYLVANIA
 PENNSYLVANIA
                                                             11
                  call from Attorney Valsamidis. Mr. Crawford testified he was ready, willing and able to

                  testify to Defendant's good character at trial.      However, Mr. Crawford was never

                  subpoenaed by Attorney Valsamidis to appear at trial.          On cross-examination, Mr.

                  Crawford stated he probably would not have traveled here to testify at trial as "this is all

                  nervous to me, I guess, you know, nerve wracking ...
                                                                   ..."" He also explained he would have

                  been upset if he were compelled to testify at trial. Mr. Crawford indicated he was in

                  Defendant's presence when he used and sold marijuana.

                         Ms. Thompson also testified at that hearing and explained she has been aa friend

                  of Defendant since Defendant was in the first grade. The last time she saw Defendant

                  was in 2013 at her brother's funeral, but they kept in touch through regular

                  communications via the telephone.       They lost touch briefly then Defendant began

                  contacting her by telephone during his incarceration. As trial was approaching, Defendant

                  and Ms. Dixon asked Ms. Thompson if she would be willing to be aa character witness for

                  Defendant.    Attorney Valsamidis did not contact Ms. Thompson concerning her

                  willingness to testify at trial. Ms. Thompson indicated she has not been convicted of any

                  felonies or crimes of dishonesty. She stated she was ready.
                                                                       ready, willing and able to testify on

                  Defendant's behalf as a character witness.        On cross-examination, Ms. Thompson

                  testified she did not appear at trial because she was not compelled to do so but would

                  have attended if she received a subpoena. She also indicated she knew Defendant was

                  a marijuana user but did not know he dealt marijuana.

                        The Court is required to examine Defendant's various claims pertaining to his trial

                  counsel's ineffectiveness.
     53RD
   .JUDICIAL
   JUDICIAL
   DISTRICT

LAWRENCE COUNTY
 PENNSYLVANIA
                                                              12
                         To establish a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must prove

                  each of the following: "1) an underlying claim of arguable merit; 2) no reasonable basis

                  for counsel's act or omission; and 3) prejudice as a result, that is, a reasonable

                  probability that but for counsel's act or omission, the outcome of the proceeding would

                  have been different." Commonwealth y.
                                                     v. Cooper, 941 A.2d 655, 664 (Pa. 2007) (citing
                                                                         655,664

                  Commonwealth v. Carpenter, 555 Pa. 434, 725 A.2d 154, 161 (1999)). Counsel is

                  presumed to be effective and the burden is on the defendant to prove otherwise.

                  Commonwealth v. Jones, 942 A.2d 903,
                                                  903,906
                                                       906 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citing Commonwealth

                  v. Pond, 846 A.2d 699 (Pa. Super. 2004)). "A failure to satisfy any prong of the test for

                  ineffectiveness will require rejection of the claim." Commonwealth v. Sneed, 587 Pa.

                  318, 899 A.2d 1067 (2006) (citing Commonwealth v. (Michael) Pierce, 567 Pa. 186, 786

                  A.2d 203, 221·223                      v. Albrecht, 554 Pa. 31, 720A.2d
                            221-223 (2001); Commonwealth y.Albrecht,              720 A.2d 693, 701

                  (1998)).

                         Counsel is effective if the Court can determine that the course of action has some

                  reasonable basis designed to effectuate the client's interest. Commonwealth y.
                                                                                              v. Sisco,

                  482 Pa. 459, 462, 393 A.2d 1197, 1199 (1978). The test for ineffective assistance of

                  counsel sets forth that the defendant must prove each of the following: (1) counsel's

                  performance was deficient and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.

                  Commonwealth v. Bolden, 512 Pa. 468, 517 A.2d 935 (1986) (quoting Strickland,

                  supra.). The prejudice requires the defendant show that, but for his counsel's

                  ineffectiveness, the result would have been different. Commonwealth v. Pierce, 515 Pa.

                  153, 161, 527 A.2d 973, 976 (1987). It must be noted that there is a presumption that
     53RD
   JUDICIAL       counsel was effective. Id,
                                         Id., 515 Pa. at 159, 527 A.2d at 975.
   DISTRICT

LAWRENCE:
LAWRENCE COUNTY
 PENNSYLVANIA
                                                              13
                         First, Defendant asserted his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call

                  character witnesses to testify at trial.

                         Trial counsel's failure to call character witnesses may constitute ineffective

                  assistance of counsel. Commonwealth v. Hull, 982 A.2d 1020, 1023 (Pa. Super. 2009)

                  (citing Commonwealth v. Harris, 785 A2d
                                                      A.2d 998 (Pa. Super. 2001)).
                                                                           2001 )). First, the defendant

                                 1) the witness existed; (2) the witness was available to testify for the
                              "(1)
                  must prove: "(

                  defense; (3) counsel knew or should have known of the existence of the witness; (4) the

                  witness was willing to testify for the defense; and (5) the absence of the witness's

                  testimony was so prejudicial as to have denied him a fair trial." Commonwealth v.

                  Mclaurin, 45 A.3d 1131, 1137 (Pa. Super. 2012) (quoting Commonwealth v. Walls, 993

                  A.2d 289, 302 (Pa. Super. 2010)). At an evidentiary hearing for the defendant's claim of

                  ineffectiveness, he or she must provide evidence, such as an affidavit, that the alleged

                  witness was available to testify and is willing to cooperate with the defense. Id. (quoting

                  Commonwealth v. Khalil, 806 A.2d 415, 422 (Pa. Super. 2002)). If the defendant is able
                                                   415,422

                  to demonstrate the witness is willing to testify, the Court must apply a reasonable basis

                  test to determine if counsel's chosen course was designed to effectuate the client's

                             kl "If [the Court] conclude[s] that tthe
                  interests. ld.                                  he particular course chosen by counsel
                  had some reasonable basis, our inquiry ceases and counsel's assistance is deemed

                                           v. Weiss, 530 Pa. 1, 5-6, 606 A.2d 439, 441-442 (1992)
                  effective." Commonwealth y.

                  (citing Commonwealth ex rel. Washington y Maroney, 427 Pa. 599, 235 A.2d 349
                                                          v.Maroney,

                  (1967)). "If we determine that there was no reasonable basis for counsel's
                                                                                   counsers chosen

                    urse then the accused must demonstrate that counsel's ineffectiveness worked to his
     53RD
   JUDICIAL       prejudice." Weiss, 530 Pa. at 6, 606 A.2d at 442 (citing Pierce, 527 A.2d 973). It is
   DISTRICT

LAWRENCE COUNTY
  PENNSYLVANIA
                                                               14
                  important to note that the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating his trial counsel

                  was ineffective as there is a presumption that counsel was effective. kl
                                                                                        ht. (citing
                  Commonwealth v. McNeil, 506 Pa. 607, 487 A.2d 802 (1985)).

                         In the current case, Attorney Valsamidis testified Defendant provided him with

                  two individuals who were potential character witnesses, which included Mr. Bernard. He

                  attempted to contact those witnesses about their willingness to testify on Defendant's

                  behalf at trial but was unable to speak with them. Moreover, Mr. Bernard left a message

                  stating he was unwilling to voluntarily testify on Defendant's behalf. In Attorney

                  Valsamidis's professional opinion, it would have been potentially detrimental to compel

                  a character witness to testify at trial.

                         Defendant presented the testimony of two prospective character witnesses he

                  wanted to testify at trial, Mr. Crawford and Ms. Thompson. While Mr. Crawford was

                  willing to attest to Defendant's good character and peaceful nature, he expressed a

                  reluctance to testify at trial as he considered it "nerve wracking". In addition, he stated

                  Defendant was a marijuana user and dealer, who performed both of those acts in Mr.

                  Crawford's presence. Mr. Crawford was never asked about Defendant's reputation in

                  the local community in regards to his character.

                         As it relates to Ms. Thompson, she expressed her complete willingness to testify

                  on Defendant's behalf as a character witness without hesitation stating, "He's a great

                  human being". Despite having been self-described lifelong friends with Defendant, she

                  has not spent significant time in the company of the Defendant prior to his incarceration

                  nor has she spent much time in the local community in Ashtabula, Ohio. Ms. Thompson
     53RD
   JUDICIAL       graduated high school in 2004 and moved to Indiana for college. She returned to the
   DisrRICT
   DISTRICT

LAWRENCE COUNTY
 PENNSYI..VANJA
 PENNsYLVAN!A
                                                               15
                  Ashtabula, Ohio, area briefly in 2007 before moving to her current location of Colorado

                  Springs, Colorado, in 2008. She had not been in Defendant's presence since seeing

                  him at her brother's funeral in 2013. They did not communicate frequently thereafter

                  until Defendant was arrested on the current charges and he began contacting her by

                  telephone. It would be difficult for Ms. Thompson to testify convincingly about his

                  character or reputation as she has not spent much time around him and there were long

                  periods of time they did not regularly communicate with each other.

                         Based upon the testimony of record, there is no indication Attorney Valsamidis was

                  aware of Ms. Thompson's willingness to testify at trial and the only witness he clearly was

                  aware of, Mr. Bernard, did not show an interest in testifying on Defendant's behalf.

                  Moreover, Mr. Crawford displayed a distinct hesitancy to testify at trial as stated in his

                  testimony concerning Defendant's PCRA Petition. Attorney Valsamidis exercised his

                  professional judgment as a seasoned criminal defense attorney to advise Defendant

                  presenting character witnesses at trial would not be in his best interest.

                        Additionally, there is nothing of record to indicate the testimony of Mr. Crawford or

                  Ms. Thompson would have remedied many of the issues Defendant faced at trial, such

                  as the false statement to the Troopers about being in possession of a firearm. In fact,

                  Defendant admitted in his testimony he lied to the Troopers about the firearm as he feared

                  legal repercussions for providing a firearm to a convicted felon. Similarly, Defendant

                  admitted he was a marijuana user and regularly sold marijuana. Furthermore, there is

                  nothing the aforementioned witnesses could have told the jury to alleviate the harm

                   aused by testimony relating to Defendant's less than honorable discharge from the
     53RO
     53R0
   JUDICIAL.
   JUDICIAL       Marines, the incident at his mother's residence involving threatening another person with
   DISTRICT

LAWRENCE COUNTY
 PENNSYLVANIA
                                                              16
                  the .25 caliber pistol or the tattoo on his lip of the word "Kill". As such, Defendant failed

                  to demonstrate he was prejudiced by Attorney Valsamidis's failure to call character

                  witnesses on his behalf at trial.

                         Next, Defendant contended his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to properly

                  investigate an alibi defense, file a notice of alibi defense and request the Court provide

                  the jury with an alibi instruction.

                         An unexplained failure to request an alibi jury instruction after presenting alibi

                  evidence demonstrates ineffective assistance of counsel. Commonwealth y_
                                                                                        v. Nauman,

                  498 A.2d 913, 916 (Pa. Super. 1985). An alibi defense "places the defendant at the

                  relevant time in a different place than the scene involved and so removed therefrom as to

                  render it impossible for him to be the guilty party." Commonwealth v. Dennis, 17 A.3d

                  297, 302 (Pa. 2011). "All that is required is that, due to separation, it is impossible for the

                  defendant to have committed the crime." Id. If a defendant resorts to an alibi defense,

                  the evidence must show it was impossible for the defendant to be present at the

                  commission of the crime. Commonwealth v. Saldutte, 7 A.2d 121, 123 (Pa. Super. 1939).

                  "An alibi which leaves it possible for the accused to be guilty, is no alibi at all."

                               y.Larue,
                  Commonwealth v. Larue, 44 A.2d 535, 536 (Pa. Super. 1945). In order to create an alibi

                  defense there must be consistency between the date and time of the crime and that of

                  defendant's alibi. Commonwealth y.
                                                  v. Ali, 10 A.3d 282, 316 (Pa. 2010) (The Court denied

                  the appellant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to present alleged alibi

                  witness's statement as it was inadmissible hearsay and did not support an alibi because

                  it failed to account for the appellant's whereabouts during all times at which the murder
     53RD
   JUDICIAL       could have occurred).
   DISTRICT

LAWRENCE COUNTY
 PENNSYLVANIA
 RENN$YLVANIA
                                                                17
                         In the current case, Attorney Valsamidis testified he did not file a notice of alibi

                  defense and did not request an alibi instruction for the jury because Defendant's testimony

                  indicated he was with Decedent on the day of the homicide and was in the basement of

                  Defendant's residence. Defendant, by his own admission, left Decedent's residence at

                  approximately 4:00 p.m. and returned to Ashtabula around 5:30 or 6:00 p.m.              The

                  timeframe set forth by Defendant's testimony does not render it impossible for him to have

                  been present when Decedent was killed.           His testimony does not constitute an alibi

                  defense and an alibi defense instruction would not have been appropriate at trial. Hence,

                  Attorney Valsamidis was not ineffective for failing to file a notice of alibi defense and for

                  failing to request an alibi jury instruction.

                         Defendant also asserted his trial counsel was ineffective when he conceded twice

                  during his closing argument the Decedent's death occurred between 3:30 p.m. and 6:30

                  p.m. Attorney Valsamidis believed that statement was helpful in establishing the defense

                  presented at trial as Defendant indicated the perpetrators followed him toward Ashtabula

                  where they disposed of Decedent's cell phone. This would be consistent with those

                  individuals having committed the homicide prior to following Defendant, which is in

                  accordance with the timeframe referenced by Attorney Valsamidis.            Thus, Attorney

                  Valsamidis had a reasonable basis for making those statements in closing argument and

                  he was not ineffective for doing the same. Moreover, Defendant failed to demonstrate he

                  was prejudiced by his trial counsel's statement and how omitting that statement would

                  have resulted in an acquittal.

                         Next, Defendant contended trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion
     53RD
   JUDICIAL       in limine or object at trial to the Commonwealth asking about and then showing
   DISTRICT

LAWRENCE COUNTY
  PENNSYLVANIA
                                                                  18
                  Defendant's lip tattoo which read "KILL", testimony concerning a post on Defendant's

                  Twitter page which stated, "One day I'm finally going to be calm and I'll be surrounded by

                  shell casings" and evidence of a prior incident at Defendant's mother's house in which

                  Defendant brandished the .25 caliber pistol due to another individual destroying a

                  bedroom.

                         Evidence of crimes or other acts are inadmissible to prove a person's character in

                  order to show the person acted in accordance with that character trait. Pa.R.E.
                                                                                          Pa.RE. 404(b)(1 ).
                                                                                                  404(b)(1).

                  However, that evidence is admissible for another purpose such as proving motive,

                  opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or Jack
                                                                                                     lack of

                            Pa.R.E. 404(b)(2). The aforementioned list is not exclusive as it relates to
                  accident. Pa.RE.

                  legitimate purposes for admitting evidence of crimes or other acts. Commonwealth v.

                  Brown, 52 A.3d 320, 325 (Pa. Super. 2012).           The Pennsylvania Courts also have

                  recognized that evidence may be used when there is a logical connection between the

                  crimes that proof of one will naturally tend to show the accused committed the other. Id,
                                                                                                        Id.,

                     A. 3d at 326. Similarly, that type of evidence may be admitted to impeach a defendant's
                  52 A.3d

                  credibility as the defendant is not insulated from being discredited merely because the

                  proof involves other crimes or bad acts. Commonwealth y.Hood,
                                                                        v. Hood, 872 A.2d 175, 185 (Pa.

                                             v. Nypaver, 69 A.3d 708, 716-717 (Pa. Super. 2013).
                  Super. 2005); Commonwealth v.Nypaver,

                         The Commonwealth questioned Defendant concerning his Twitter post containing

                  the quote "One day I'm finally going to be calm and I'll be surrounded by shell casings"

                  and referred to the "Kill" tattoo on his lip to impeach his testimony in which he referred to

                  himself as a "hippie" who collects vinyl and smokes weed. He also indicated he is a
     53RD
   JUDICIAL       peaceful and loving person.     While that evidence would not ordinarily be admissible to
   DISTRICT

LAWRENCE COUNTY
 Pl!NNSYLVANIA
 PENNSYLVANIA
                                                               19
                  demonstrate he had a propensity for violence, it was available to impeach his testimony

                  when he declared he had a peaceful nature in the form of characterizing himself as a

                  "hippie".
                  "hippie" It must be noted Attorney Valsamidis requested a sidebar prior to the admission

                  of that evidence to obtain an offer of proof. The Commonwealth explained it was being

                  used for impeachment purposes. As a result of the Commonwealth presenting this

                  evidence for the legitimate purpose of impeaching Defendant's testimony relating to his

                  peaceful nature, Attorney Valsamidis acted reasonably in failing to object as that evidence

                  was admissible.

                         Attorney Valsamidis also acted reasonably in failing to object to evidence

                  pertaining to the incident in which an individual was destroying Defendant's mother's

                  bedroom and Defendant brandished a .25 caliber pistol to deter that behavior. At the time

                  it was presented, the Commonwealth did not know whether Defendant was going to testify

                  at trial and it was required to demonstrate Defendant possessed a firearm, especially in

                  light of his statement to the Troopers denying possession of a firearm.         Again, the

                  Commonwealth used this evidence to impeach the credibility of the statement provided

                  by Defendant and his possession of the firearm was relevant to his ability to commit the

                  crime at issue. The Court provided an instruction to the jury stating that evidence was

                  admitted for a limited purpose tending to show motive, opportunity, intent, preparation,

                  plan, knowledge, identity and absence of mistake or accident. The Court clearly informed

                  the jury that evidence was not to be interpreted as showing Defendant is a person of bad

                  character or has criminal tendencies from which they would be inclined to infer guilt.

                  Hence, Attorney Valsamidis was not ineffective for failing to object to that evidence.
     53RD
     53D
   JUDICIAL
   DISTRICT

LAWRENCE COUNTY
 PENNSYLVANIA
                                                              20
                         Defendant argued his trial counsel was ineffective for failure to hire an

                  investigator to explore various issues crucial to preparing and presenting a defense at

                  trial. However, trial counsel is under no duty to hire an investigator where the defendant

                  fails to demonstrate the investigator would have affected the outcome of the trial, which

                  renders this claim without merit. See Commonwealth v. Murray, 488 A.2d 45, 47 (Pa.

                  Super. 1985).

                         In the current matter, Defendant contends a private investigator could have been

                  useful in locating the grow shed where Defendant and Decedent removed the marijuana

                  prior to Decedent's death. However, Defendant was unable to provide an adequate

                  explanation of the location of the grow shed to Attorney Valsamidis causing him concern

                  as to whether the shed would be located by an investigator. It also raised concerns the

                  Commonwealth would become aware Defendant could not recall the location of the

                  grow shed, which would be utilized to call into question his version of events from that

                  day. Defendant believes a private investigator could have located associates of Ms.

                  Magno along with her criminal history. Unfortunately, Defendant failed to demonstrate

                  how that information would have been helpful in presenting a defense at trial.

                  Moreover, an investigation into Ms. Magno and her associates did not correlate with

                  Defendant's version of events which point to the individuals in the vehicle who followed

                  him to Ashtabula being the perpetrators. Thus, Defendant's claim for ineffective

                  assistance of counsel concerning the failure to retain a private investigator was denied.

                        Next, Defendant argued his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to admit and

                  publish to the jury a photograph taken by Decedent's girlfriend of Decedent's body and
     53RD
   JUDICIAL       the voicemail Defendant left for Decedent when he arrived in Ashtabula, Ohio.
   DISTRICT

LAWRENCE COUNTY
 PENNSYLVANIA
                                                              21
                         Upon questioning by Defendant's counsel, Attorney Valsamidis was unable to

                  recall whether the photograph of Decedent's body was admitted into evidence and

                  published to the jury at Defendant's trial. There is nothing to indicate the omission of

                  that photograph prejudiced Defendant in any way. Ms. Magno taking a picture of

                  Decedent's body does not make Defendant's guilt more or less likely. The jury was well

                  aware Ms. Magno went to Decedent's residence after not receiving a response to her

                  text messages and telephone calls and she went inside of the residence because the

                  door was unlocked. The jury also heard testimony Ms. Magno called Mr. Roupp, who

                  arrived at the residence shortly thereafter and discovered Decedent's body in the

                  basement. In addition, Ms. Magno placed the phone call reporting Decedent's death. It

                  in no way exonerates Defendant merely because Ms. Magno took a photograph of

                  Decedent's body with her cell phone. In fact, the jury was aware of Ms. Magno's

                  strange behavior as she admitted to taking the photograph during her testimony at trial.

                  Hence, Defendant has not established he was prejudiced in any manner due to trial

                  counsel's failure to admit and publish the photograph of Decedent's body taken by Ms.

                  Magno.

                        Attorney Valsamidis acknowledged he did not play the voicemail message

                  Defendant left on Decedent's cell phone as he was not even sure he had a recording of

                  it. However, Attorney Valsamidis felt the voicemail having not been played for the jury

                  furthered a portion of the defense based upon the "sloppiness" of the Commonwealth's

                  investigation demonstrating investigators "not having crossed all their T's and dotted

                  their l's". Attorney Valsamidis explained the records he received concerning
     53RD
     53R0
   JUDICIAL       Defendant's cell phone correlated with Defendant's testimony regarding calls he made
   DISTRICT

LAWRENCE COUNTY
 PENNSYLVANIA
                                                              22
                  to Decedent and their duration. It was a reasonable strategy for Attorney Valsamidis to

                  forego seeking the voicemail recording as its absence pointed to a lack of thoroughness

                  to the investigation while Defendant's phone records support Defendant's testimony

                  relating to the calls he made to Decedent. Additionally, the audio on the voicemail could

                  have been interpreted by the jury as being self-serving and the jury merely being aware

                  the call was made was sufficient for assisting to establish the defense presented at trial.

                  There is nothing in the record to indicate playing a recording of the voicemail from

                  Defendant to Decedent would have made a significant impact on the decision rendered

                  by the jury as they were aware Defendant placed the call to Decedent. Hence, Attorney

                  Valsamidis was not ineffective for failing to play the voicemail from Defendant to

                  Decedent.

                         Defendant claims Attorney Valsamidis testified at the proceedings for Defendant's

                  PCRA Petition concerning a false narrative that Defendant informed him the owners of

                  the shed he and the victim robbed killed the victim and followed Defendant to Ashtabula,

                  Ohio. The Court finds Attorney Valsamidis's testimony as it relates to his discussions with

                  Defendant pertaining to the vehicle following Defendant to Ashtabula to be credible based

                  upon the testimony and evidence of record. The defense presented at trial was predicated

                  upon the involvement of the owners of the shed and the victim's death was an act of

                  retribution for Defendant and the victim robbing the shed. Defendant was well aware of

                  that defense at trial and he perpetuated the same through his testimony in which he

                  explained he provided the victim with the .25 caliber pistol to be used as protection from

                  the owners of the shed.     In his Final Memorandum in Support of PCRA, Defendant
     53RD
   JUDICIAL
                  contends Attorney Valsamidis was ineffective for failing to hire an investigator to make
   DISTRICT
   DIsTRICT

LAWRENCE COUNTY
 PENNSYLVANIA
 PENN9YLANtA
                                                              23
                   further inquiries into the owners of the shed as it was the defense's theory at trial those

                   were the individuals who killed the victim with the .25 caliber pistol Defendant provided to

                   the victim. It was not until after the Court denied Defendant's PCRA Petition and he filed

                   his Concise Statement of Errors did Defendant claim Attorney Valsamidis raised a false

                   narrative about the owners of the shed occupying the vehicle which followed him to

                   Ashtabula, Ohio. Hence, the Court cannot find any basis to grant the relief requested by

                   Defendant based upon his assertion Attorney Valsamidis fabricated the narrative

                   concerning the owners of the shed following him to Ashtabula.

                          Based upon the foregoing, Defendant Appeal should be denied in its entirety.

                                                                                                          U")
                                                                                                          Lo
                                                                                                          c
                                                                                                          C

                                                                                                          £

     53RD
     3RD
   JUDICIAL
   DISTRICT

LAWRENCE COUNTY
 PENNSVL'\IA.NlA
 PENNSYLVANtA
                                                               24