Court Opinion

ID: 9379835
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-16 16:07:11.86538+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:06.396297
License: Public Domain

J-S40007-22
J-S40008-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
              v.                       :
                                       :
                                       :
 WILLIAM PLUMMER                       :
                                       :
                   Appellant           :   No. 1623 EDA 2021

             Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered July 8, 2021
           In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
           Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0003690-2014

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
              v.                       :
                                       :
                                       :
 WILLIAM PLUMMER                       :
                                       :
                   Appellant           :   No. 2070 EDA 2021

             Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered July 8, 2021
           In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
           Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0015155-2013

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
              v.                       :
                                       :
                                       :
 WILLIAM PLUMMER                       :
                                       :
                   Appellant           :   No. 262 EDA 2022

             Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered July 8, 2021
           In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
           Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0003689-2014

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., STABILE, J., and KING, J.
J-S40007-22
J-S40008-22

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.:                          FILED MARCH 16, 2023

       William Plummer appeals, pro se, from the orders dismissing his petition

for relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). 1 See 42

Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. Plummer raises numerous ineffective assistance of

counsel claims. We affirm.

       This Court previously set forth the underlying facts as follows:

       On September 29, 2013, at around 1:00 a.m., Ronald Elliot left
       his girlfriend, Kandis Fowler’s, home at 3601 Conshohocken
       Avenue and went to the apartment building’s parking lot.
       [Plummer] and two other men, holding fake police badges,
       jumped out of the bushes and yelled “Freeze, Police.” Elliot ran
       out of the parking lot and across the street as the three men
       chased him. [Plummer] stopped pursuing Elliot and acted as a
       lookout standing on the sidewalk on the parking lot side of the
       street while the other two men caught Elliot across the street.
       After the two men hit Elliot four or five times in the head with a
       firearm, cutting him on the head, the two men took Elliot’s watch,
       money and car keys. The men joined back up with [Plummer] and
       all three men ran to the parking lot. Elliot saw [Plummer] drive off
       in Fowler’s Ford Expedition.

____________________________________________

1 Plummer filed timely appeals at 1623 EDA 2021 and 2070 EDA 2021. At 262
EDA 2022, Plummer filed a pro se notice of appeal from the July 8, 2021 order
on January 11, 2022, which would make the appeal untimely. However, the
PCRA court docket does not indicate that the July 8, 2021 order was served
on Plummer or the date of service of the order. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 114(B)(1)
(“A copy of any order or court notice promptly shall be served on … the party
if unrepresented.”); Pa.R.Crim.P.114(C)(2)(c) (requires the criminal docket
entries to include “the date of service of the order”); see also Pa.R.Crim.P.
907(4) (providing that a PCRA court order dismissing a petition without a
hearing “shall be filed and served as provided in Rule 114.”). Therefore, we
consider the appeal at 262 EDA 2022 to be timely. Furthermore, because
these appeals have a substantially similar procedural history and raise the
same legal questions, we consolidate them sua sponte and will consider them
together.

                                           -2-
J-S40007-22
J-S40008-22

     On February 5, 2014, after [Plummer] had been arrested and
     charged with [the] robbery of Elliot, Elliot received multiple phone
     calls from [Plummer]. [Plummer] threatened Elliot, explaining that
     if Elliot attended the next court date [Plummer] was going to
     firebomb the homes of Elliot’s mother, girlfriend, and grandparent
     and kill Elliot….

     On February 9[,] 2014, Valerie and Russell Fowler, Kandis Fowler’s
     parents, were living in a row home on Washington Lane. At about
     4:00 a.m., Valerie Fowler heard a “bang” and smelled smoke.
     Russell Fowler went downstairs and saw a small fire in the back
     yard. After the fire was extinguished, Russell Fowler noted that
     the first floor back window was broken and saw a bottle with a
     wick in it in the back yard.

     Detective Timothy Brooks of the Philadelphia Police’s Bomb
     Disposal Unit and an expert in arson explosives arrived at the
     Fowler’s home on Washington Lane shortly after the fire was
     extinguished. Outside the back of the house, Detective Brooks
     observed two bottles with wicks in them, one intact and the other
     shattered, which he believed to be Molotov cocktails. Detective
     Brooks observed strike marks on the back window and a broken
     bottle at the bottom of the basement steps that indicated that a
     Molotov cocktail had struck the house and fallen to the ground.
     The intact bottle contained liquid and a cloth wick, which smelled
     of gasoline. Detective Brooks recovered the bottles, wicks, and
     liquid.

     On February 9, 2014, Detective Kevin Sloan requested that
     Philadelphia prison authorities search [Plummer’s cell]. The prison
     authorities recovered a cell phone in [Plummer’s] cell. According
     to Cricket Communications’ records, the cell phone recovered
     from [Plummer’s] cell had been used to call Elliot four times on
     February 5, 2014.

     [Plummer] testified on his own behalf. [He] asserted that in the
     first week of September 2013, Elliot gave [Plummer] $15,000 to
     purchase drugs for him. [Plummer] kept the money but did not
     purchase the drugs. [Plummer] asserted that on September 29,
     2013, he was not on Conshohocken Avenue but instead was in
     Norristown. [Plummer] explained that he was unable to run
     because he was shot many years before. [Plummer] admitted that
     he had called Elliot but claimed the call was to arrange to return
     Elliot’s money in exchange for Elliot not appearing at trial.

                                    -3-
J-S40007-22
J-S40008-22

     [Plummer] was charged with numerous crimes at the above-
     captioned docket numbers. Ultimately, a jury convicted him of one
     or more counts each of conspiracy, aggravated assault, robbery,
     robbery of a motor vehicle, arson, risking a catastrophe,
     intimidation of a victim, retaliation against a victim, and
     contraband (non-controlled substance). [Plummer] received an
     aggregate sentence of thirty to sixty years of incarceration. On
     direct appeal, this Court affirmed, and our Supreme Court denied
     [Plummer]’s     petition    for  allowance    of   appeal.   See
     Commonwealth v. Plummer, 153 A.3d 1110 (Pa. Super. 2016)
     (unpublished memorandum), appeal denied, 159 A.3d 938 (Pa.
     2016).

     [Plummer] filed a timely pro se PCRA petition, and counsel was
     appointed. Counsel filed an amended petition, including only four
     of the many claims that [Plummer] raised in his pro se filings.
     Displeased by the omissions, [Plummer] applied for the
     appointment of new counsel. [Plummer] also filed a letter in which
     he contended that PCRA counsel had a duty to pursue each and
     every claim that [Plummer] wished to raise, or to file “a hybrid
     [Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988);
     Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en
     banc) letter” explaining why there was no merit in the claims he
     chose not to include in the amended petition. Citing [Plummer’s]
     lack of faith in his representation, counsel sought to withdraw and
     have the PCRA court appoint new counsel or hold a hearing
     pursuant to Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81, 82 (Pa.
     1998)…. For reasons not apparent from the certified record, the
     PCRA court denied the request without conducting a Grazier
     hearing.

     [Plummer] next filed a motion to proceed pro se, which the PCRA
     court addressed at the outset of the hearing it had scheduled on
     the claims raised in counsel’s amended petition. [Plummer]
     informed the court that he did not want to represent himself, but
     rather he desired to have counsel pursue all of the claims that he
     wished to raise. The PCRA court deferred addressing that issue,
     instead having PCRA counsel conduct the questioning of witnesses
     in connection with the issues raised in the counseled petition. At
     the end of the hearing, the PCRA court scheduled another date for
     [Plummer] to present additional witnesses.

                                    -4-
J-S40007-22
J-S40008-22

     In between hearings, [Plummer] filed another motion to proceed
     pro se, citing “irreconcilable differences and the lack of
     communication on strategy.” At the second PCRA hearing, the
     PCRA court did not conduct a Grazier hearing or otherwise
     address [Plummer’s] renewed request for self-representation.
     Instead, counsel continued to represent [Plummer] at the second
     hearing, presenting and cross-examining witnesses. Following the
     close of evidence and the arguments of counsel, the PCRA court
     invited [Plummer] to state “what it is that you want preserved for
     the record[.]” [Plummer] indicated, inter alia, that he wanted the
     pro se PCRA claims that counsel omitted from the amended
     petition to be “exhausted.” At that point, the PCRA court
     conducted a colloquy to determine whether [Plummer] wished to
     make a knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to counsel. The
     PCRA court [dismissed the amended PCRA petition. Further, the
     PCRA court] concluded that [Plummer] desired to proceed pro se
     on appeal, and ultimately entered an order allowing counsel to
     withdraw.

Commonwealth v. Plummer, 2042 EDA 2018 (Pa. Super. filed Apr. 1, 2020)

(unpublished memorandum at 2-5) (citations and footnote omitted).

     On appeal, this Court vacated the order, finding that the PCRA court

erred in failing to conduct a Grazier hearing when the court was first

presented the issue of Plummer’s desire to raise all of his PCRA claims.

Accordingly, this Court remanded for Plummer to file a pro se amended PCRA

petition, raising the claims he wished the PCRA court to resolve. See id.

(unpublished memorandum at 15-16).

     On remand, Plummer filed several amended PCRA petitions, raising

ineffective assistance of trial, appellate, and PCRA counsel claims. The PCRA

court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice. Plummer filed a response. Thereafter,

the PCRA court dismissed Plummer’s petition. These timely appeals followed.

                                    -5-
J-S40007-22
J-S40008-22

      On appeal, Plummer raises a voluminous amount of ineffectiveness

claims regarding his trial, appellate, and PCRA counsel, and claims of error by

the PCRA court. See Appellant’s Brief at 5-6 (raising 8 issues); Appellant’s

Supplemental Brief at 4-9 (raising 22 issues labeled A through V). In essence,

Plummer argues that (1) trial counsel and appellate counsel were ineffective

for failing to challenge the trial court’s jury instruction as to criminal

conspiracy; (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to

suppress the cell phone found in his prison cell; (3) trial counsel was

ineffective for failing to investigate a corroborating witness who was

Plummer’s cellmate; (4) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge

testimony or evidence relating to the cellphone found in his prison cell; (5)

trial counsel was ineffective for not seeking discovery from the Commonwealth

regarding his character; (6) PCRA counsel was ineffective for failing to raise

numerous claims; and (7) the PCRA court erred in failing to order him to file

a Rule 1925(b) concise statement so that it could more fully address his

claims. See Appellant’s Brief at 12-18; Appellant’s Supplemental Brief at 10-

51.

      Our standard of review regarding a PCRA court’s order “is whether the

determination of the PCRA court is supported by the evidence of record and is

free of legal error.” Commonwealth v. Rizvi, 166 A.3d 344, 347 (Pa. Super.

2017). “The PCRA court’s findings will not be disturbed unless there is no

                                     -6-
J-S40007-22
J-S40008-22

support for the findings in the certified record.” Commonwealth v. Garcia,

23 A.3d 1059, 1061 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citation omitted).

      Further, to succeed on an ineffectiveness claim, Plummer must

demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that “(1) the underlying claim

has arguable merit; (2) counsel had no reasonable basis for his or her action

or inaction; and (3) the petitioner suffered prejudice as a result of counsel’s

action or inaction.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 196 A.3d 130, 150 (Pa. 2018)

(citation omitted). Counsel is presumed to be effective, and the burden is on

Plummer to prove otherwise. See Commonwealth v. Simpson, 66 A.3d 253,

260 (Pa. 2013). A failure to satisfy any prong of the test for ineffectiveness

will require rejection of the claim. See Commonwealth v. Montalvo, 244

A.3d 359, 368 (Pa. 2021).

      To be eligible for relief on a claim that appellate or PCRA counsel was

ineffective, the petitioner “must meet all three prongs of the . . . test for

ineffectiveness” for each counsel. Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 30 A.3d 1111,

1128 (Pa. 2011) (citation omitted). “A failure to satisfy any of the three prongs

of the [ineffectiveness] test requires rejection of a claim of ineffective

assistance of trial counsel, which, in turn, requires rejection of a layered claim

of ineffective assistance of” appellate or PCRA counsel. Id. (citation omitted).

      First, Plummer claims that trial and direct appeal counsel were

ineffective for failing to argue that the court improperly instructed the jury in

response to a jury question on the criminal conspiracy charge. See Appellant’s

                                      -7-
J-S40007-22
J-S40008-22

Brief at 12-14. More specifically, Plummer argues that trial counsel was

ineffective for failing to object to the instruction, baldly claiming that the

instruction relieved the Commonwealth of its burden to prove each element

of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt. See id. at 12. Plummer

asserts that the trial court failed to explain to the jurors that they had to find

the Commonwealth had proved every element of the robbery charges before

they could find him guilty. See id. at 13. According to Plummer, his claim has

arguable merit, neither counsel had a reasonable basis to fail to raise this

issue, and he was clearly prejudiced. See id. at 13-14. Plummer also claims

that PCRA counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain affidavits from trial and

appellate counsel to determine whether either counsel had a reasonable basis

for their failure to raise the jury instruction issue. See id. at 13.

      When evaluating the propriety of jury instructions, this Court will
      look to the instructions as a whole, and not simply isolated
      portions, to determine if the instructions were improper. We
      further note that, it is an unquestionable maxim of law in this
      Commonwealth that a trial court has broad discretion in phrasing
      its instructions, and may choose its own wording so long as the
      law is clearly, adequately, and accurately presented to the jury for
      its consideration. Only where there is an abuse of discretion or an
      inaccurate statement of the law is there reversible error.

Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736, 754 (Pa. Super. 2014)

(citations and brackets omitted).

      During deliberations, the jury asked the trial court: “If we find that the

defendant is guilty of criminal conspiracy the night of the carjacking, does that

                                       -8-
J-S40007-22
J-S40008-22

make him guilty of the other charges?” N.T. 2/12/15, at 9. The trial court

responded as follows:

     I want to start off by telling you that to reemphasize – not
     reemphasize, but to reiterate that there are two different types of
     conspiracy involved in this case. There is a conspiracy as a type
     of liability, and that was when I talked to you about how you can
     be responsible for the crime even if you didn’t physically commit
     it under a conspiratorial liability and/or accomplice liability.

     Then I said that the crime of conspiracy in and of itself is a crime
     in Pennsylvania. And you have separate incidents in this case. So
     the simple answer is let’s talk about the one incident in which the
     defendant is charged with the robbery, the carjacking, conspiracy,
     and the PIC.

     You can have a conspiracy for that evening, all right, and we will
     talk about those incidents, but I want to make it clear that that
     conspiracy would not jump ahead to the other incidents. There
     would have to either be separate conspiratorial liability for the
     other charges, the intimidation, the retaliation, the arson, and the
     conspiratorial liability, or the defendant has been charged with the
     crime of conspiracy, and that's why there’s two separate charges
     of conspiracy.

     Now, you may have already figured that out and that may not be
     exactly what you were asking, but I wanted to preface my reading
     of the criminal conspiracy again to just make it very clear to you
     that if -- you have to look on the specific date to see if there was
     a conspiracy.

     So you have conspiratorial liability. Now we’re going to get to the
     crime of conspiracy. Understand that the elements are the same,
     okay. So what it really breaks down to is you can be convicted on
     a conspiratorial liability without ever being charged with
     conspiracy, but in this particular case the defendant has been
     charged with conspiracy.

     So in order to determine whether or not he’s guilty of -- we refer
     to it as the underlying crime or crimes, so in this case you’ve
     specifically asked about carjacking, what you have to do is make
     sure that the object of the crime if there's a conspiracy the specific
     crime that you’re evaluating.

                                     -9-
J-S40007-22
J-S40008-22

      So, in other words, I don’t know what facts you’ve determined,
      and I’m not going to speculate on that because that’s not my job,
      but you have to remember make sure that the object crime or the
      agreement is a specific crime that you’re considering.

      So in order -- let me use your example of carjacking. In order to
      convict the defendant of criminal conspiracy, you would have to
      determine that there was an agreement and that there was a
      specific agreement to commit the carjacking. If you look at the
      robbery, then you have to determine whether there was a specific
      agreement to commit the robbery. And that one person or more
      took a substantial step in furtherance of the agreement.

      In other words, there has to be the common understanding and
      it’s a firm common understanding that the particular crime would
      be committed.

      So, remember, there’s the agreement and then the defendant
      cannot be convicted of conspiracy unless he or a fellow conspirator
      does something more, an overt act. So as long as someone does
      an overt act in the furtherance of the conspiracy, that means
      something that would further the goal of the conspiracy, that
      shows that the parties have a firm agreement and they’re not just
      talking about or thinking about a crime, as I said to you before,
      the act has reached the action stage.

      So in this particular case remember what happens is under
      conspiratorial liability the defendant becomes responsible for the
      actions of the other individuals for the specific crime.

      Then when you look at the charge of conspiracy, it’s a whole
      separate charge itself. So the law says it’s not just a theory of
      liability. In Pennsylvania we’re making the agreement and the
      action in furtherance of the agreement an additional charge other
      than just let’s say the robbery or the carjacking.

Id. at 9-14.

      Contrary to Plummer’s assertion of error, our review of the record

reveals that, when taken in its entirety, the jury instruction was specifically

tailored to answer the question and appropriately reflected the law and

                                    - 10 -
J-S40007-22
J-S40008-22

accurately described the differences between conspiratorial liability and the

conspiracy. Importantly, during the original charge, the trial court also

instructed the jury on the robbery and robbery of a motor vehicle charges.

See id. at 200-02. Moreover, the trial court has provided the jury with an

extensive instruction for the conspiracy charges in its original charge. See

N.T., 2/11/15, at 197-200, 202-06. It is presumed that the jury will “follow the

trial court’s instructions,” Commonwealth v. Vucich, 194 A.3d 1103, 1113

(Pa. Super. 2018) (citation omitted), and Plummer takes no issue with the

original instructions. Accordingly, Plummer fails to demonstrate that there was

arguable merit to his underlying claim or that any of the verdicts would have

been different with any additional charge. Therefore, trial counsel was not

ineffective for failing to object to the trial court’s instruction, and by extension,

appellate counsel was not ineffective. See Chmiel, 30 A.3d at 1128 (noting

that “if the petitioner cannot prove the underlying claim of trial counsel

ineffectiveness, then petitioner’s derivative claim of appellate counsel

ineffectiveness of necessity must fail”). Likewise, Plummer’s claim that PCRA

counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain affidavits is also without merit, as

trial and appellate counsel were not ineffective. See id.

      Next, Plummer argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to

suppress the cell phone seized from his jail cell, and the information obtained

from the phone. See Appellant’s Brief at 14-15, 16; see also Appellant’s

Supplemental Brief at 34-35. Plummer claims the search of his jail cell was

                                       - 11 -
J-S40007-22
J-S40008-22

conducted without a warrant and in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.

See Appellant’s Brief at 15. Plummer therefore contends that the contents of

his phone is also subject to suppression. See id.

      The PCRA court focused on Plummer’s status as a prisoner in concluding

trial counsel was not ineffective:

      [Plummer] was incarcerated at Curran-Fromhold Correctional
      Facility (“CFCF”) at the time he used an illegal cell phone to
      threaten Elliot. After Elliot informed the police that [Plummer] was
      the individual who called and threatened him, the police requested
      that prison officials search [Plummer’s] prison cell. When prison
      officials searched his cell, they confiscated his illegal cell phone,
      which he was not entitled to possess under any circumstances.
      See 18 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 5123[(c.2)]. After correctional officers
      turned the cell phone over to police officers, officers obtained a
      valid search warrant and pulled the call records from Cricket
      Wireless. These records indicated that the phone was used to call
      Elliot four different times. …

      [Plummer] has not shown that there was a reasonable basis for
      counsel to litigate a suppression motion. There was nothing
      improper with law enforcement’s search and seizure of
      [Plummer’s] cell phone and any motion to suppress it would have
      been frivolous. The applicability of both the federal and
      Commonwealth constitutional protections against unreasonable
      search and seizure to prisoners is limited. Commonwealth v.
      Moore, 928 A.2d 1092, 1099 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citing Hudson
      v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984)). Additionally, an incarcerated
      individual has a limited right to privacy while in prison. Moore,
      928 A.2d [at 1102] …; DeBlasio v. Pignoli, 918 A.2d 822 (Pa.
      [Cmwlth]. 2007) …. Courts have consistently upheld these
      limitations on a prisoner’s right to privacy because of the need to
      ensure the safety and operational function of the prison.
      Commonwealth v. Boyd, 580 A.2d 393, 394 (Pa. [Super.]
      1990).

      Prison officials’ search of [Plummer’s] prison cell was justified
      because of the need to ensure the safety and function of the
      prison. Police officers gave prison officials credible information
      that [Plummer] possessed an illegal cell phone and was using it to

                                     - 12 -
J-S40007-22
J-S40008-22

       threaten another individual. Because “society is not prepared to
       recognize as legitimate any subjective expectation of privacy that
       a prisoner might have in his prison cell,” trial counsel had no basis
       to litigate a suppression motion, and the claim fails. See Hudson,
       468 U.S. at 517 ….

       [Plummer] claims that counsel failed to present evidence that he
       was incarcerated at the time when he threatened Elliot. This claim
       is belied by the record. It was clear from trial counsel’s opening
       statement and the evidence presented at trial that [Plummer] was
       incarcerated at CFCF at the time Elliot’s house was firebombed.
       N.T.[,] 2/10/15[,] at 60. Thus, his claim fails.

PCRA Court Opinion, 7/8/21, at 6-8.

       We agree with the sound reasoning of the PCRA court. See id.; see

also Commonwealth v. Watley, 153 A.3d 1034, 1046 (Pa. Super. 2016)

(finding that because the claim that the evidence should have been

suppressed was without merit, counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a

motion to suppress). Therefore, Plummer’s ineffectiveness claim is without

merit.2

       Plummer also contends trial counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain

exculpatory evidence. See Appellant’s Brief at 16. Plummer’s claim in its

entirety is as follows:

       Trial counsel’s failure to investigate or interview potential
       corroborating witness Desean Dobbins who was cell mates with
       [Plummer] at the time of these calls to uncover exculpatory
       evidence that would have supported [Plummer’s] trial testimony.
       United States v. Gray, 878 F.2d 702 (3rd Cir. 1989)[.] See also
____________________________________________

2 Plummer also raised a claim that PCRA counsel was ineffective for failing to
raise this claim. See Appellant’s Supplemental Brief at 34. However, as noted
below, he fails to provide any pertinent analysis to support his ineffectiveness
claim in this regard. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). Accordingly, this claim is waived.

                                          - 13 -
J-S40007-22
J-S40008-22

       Commonwealth v. Mabie, 359 A.2d 369, 374 (Pa. 1976).
       Counsel’s actions had no reasonable basis and prejudice resulted
       from counsel’s failure to investigate, interview potential witness
       Desean Dobbins, had trial counsel done so, Desean Dobbins would
       have been called to [testify] in-order to corroborate [Plummer’s]
       trial testimony.

Id.

       While recognizing that this Court can liberally construe a pro se brief,

we    conclude    that   Plummer’s       argument   is   woefully   inadequate.   See

Commonwealth v. Ray, 134 A.3d 1109, 1114-15 (Pa. Super. 2016) (stating

that “a pro se litigant must still comply with the Pennsylvania Rules of

Appellate      Procedure.”   (citation    omitted)).     Plummer    merely    provides

conclusory statements that counsel was ineffective without indicating whether

Dobbins was available to testify on his behalf or the contents of his alleged

corroborative statements. See Commonwealth v. Spotz, 896 A.2d 1191,

1250    (Pa.     2006)   (“[B]oilerplate,    undeveloped”     arguments      regarding

ineffective assistance of counsel are “insufficient to establish an entitlement

to post-conviction relief.” (citation omitted)). Therefore, Plummer waived this

claim. See Commonwealth v. Paddy, 15 A.3d 431, 444 (Pa. 2011) (stating

that when an appellant fails “to set forth all three prongs of the ineffectiveness

test and [to] meaningfully discuss them, he is not entitled to relief, and we

are constrained to find such claims waived for lack of development”) (citation

omitted)).

       Plummer also contends that trial and appellate counsel were ineffective

for failing to challenge the evidence obtained from the cell phone, because it

                                          - 14 -
J-S40007-22
J-S40008-22

was not properly authenticated and was unreliable. See Appellant’s Brief at

16-17. However, Plummer fails to meaningfully discuss the three prongs of

the ineffectiveness test; therefore, we conclude that this claim is also waived.

See Paddy, 15 A.3d at 444; Spotz, 896 A.2d at 1250.

        Next, Plummer baldly argues that “[t]rial counsel provided ineffective

assistance where he failed to demand reciprocal discovery regarding any

negative character evidence during appellant’s trial testimony.” Appellant’s

Brief at 17. Again, Plummer has not provided any other argument and does

not meaningfully discuss the three prongs of the ineffectiveness test; as a

result, the claim is waived. See Paddy, 15 A.3d at 444; Spotz, 896 A.2d at

1250.

        Additionally, Plummer asserts that the PCRA court erred in failing to

order him to file a concise statement so that it could address his numerous

ineffective assistance of PCRA counsel claims in an opinion. See Appellant’s

Brief at 17-18. According to Plummer, the PCRA court did not discharge its

duty to address all of his claims. See id. at 18.

        Here, Plummer supports his argument by citing to case law related to

counsel’s withdrawal from PCRA representation under Turner/Finley,

claiming that the PCRA court must conduct an independent examination of the

record. Such an argument does not in any way establish that the PCRA court

did not address all of his pro se claims in this case or that the PCRA court had

a legal duty to order the filing of a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement. In

                                     - 15 -
J-S40007-22
J-S40008-22

fact, Plummer neglects to acknowledge that Rule 1925(a) opinions are merely

advisory and are issued for the benefit of appellate review. See Youst v.

Keck’s Food Serv., Inc., 94 A.3d 1057, 1075 (Pa. Super. 2014); see also

Commonwealth v. Lobiondo, 462 A.2d 662, 665 n.4 (Pa. 1983) (noting that

a trial court’s Rule 1925(a) opinion “is intended as an aid to the reviewing

appellate court and cannot alter a previously entered verdict”). Because

Plummer fails to demonstrate that the PCRA court did not consider his claims

prior to dismissing his petition, he is not entitled to relief on this claim. 3

       We now turn to Plummer’s supplemental brief, in which he raises 22

claims relating to PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness. As a preliminary matter, our

Supreme Court recently held that the proper procedure for enforcing the right

to effective PCRA counsel is by “allowing a petitioner to raise claims of

ineffective PCRA counsel at the first opportunity [(after obtaining new counsel

or acting pro se)], even if on appeal.” Commonwealth v. Bradley, 261 A.3d

381, 405 (Pa. 2021).

       In some instances, the record before the appellate court will be
       sufficient to allow for disposition of any newly-raised
       ineffectiveness claims. However, in other cases, the appellate
       court may need to remand to the PCRA court for further
       development of the record and for the PCRA court to consider such
____________________________________________

3 We additionally note that Plummer argues our Supreme Court “condemned
the wholesale adoption of a party’s brief in lieu of filing a PCRA court opinion
on the grounds that the independent role of the judiciary is not properly served
absent some autonomous judicial expression of the reasons for dismissing the
PCRA petition.” Appellant’s Brief at 18. However, Plummer cites to no portion
of the PCRA court’s opinion wherein the PCRA court adopted a party’s brief.
Therefore, this claim is without merit.

                                          - 16 -
J-S40007-22
J-S40008-22

      claims as an initial matter. Consistent with our prior case law, to
      advance a request for remand, a petition would be required to
      provide more than mere boilerplate assertions of PCRA counsel’s
      ineffectiveness; however, where there are material facts at issue
      concerning claims challenging counsel’s stewardship and relief is
      not plainly unavailable as a matter of law, the remand should be
      afforded.

Id. at 402 (citations, brackets, and quotation marks omitted). In other words,

“appellate courts will have the ability to grant or deny relief on straightforward

claims, as well as the power to remand to the PCRA court for the development

of the record.” Id. at 403.

      We acknowledge that Plummer timely raised his PCRA counsel’s

ineffectiveness claims in his PCRA petitions upon remand by this Court.

However, Plummer is not entitled to relief on these claims or further remand

to develop the record. Indeed, for his claims labeled A through T and V,

Plummer merely raises bald allegations of PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness for

failing to raise multiple claims, and mostly cites to case law regarding the

general standards applicable to an ineffectiveness assistance of counsel claim

without any further analysis establishing ineffectiveness based upon the

discrete claims. See Supplemental Appellant’s Brief at 10-48, 51; see also

Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (noting that an argument must include a pertinent

discussion and citation to authorities). To that end, Plummer has failed to

satisfy any of the three prongs of the ineffectiveness test for each counsel,

which requires a rejection of his claim. See Chmiel, 30 A.3d at 1128; Spotz,

                                     - 17 -
J-S40007-22
J-S40008-22

896 A.2d at 1250.4 Accordingly, based upon this argument and record, we

conclude that Plummer’s PCRA counsel ineffectiveness claims are without

merit. See Bradley, 261 A.3d at 402 (noting that boilerplate allegations of

ineffectiveness do not entitle a petitioner to relief); see also Commonwealth

v. Martz, 232 A.3d 801, 811 (Pa. Super. 2020) (stating that this Court will

not act as counsel or develop arguments for appellant, and that raising issues

without analysis or citation to pertinent authority precludes appellate review

of the claim).

       For his claim at U in the supplemental brief, Plummer contends that

PCRA counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by not asserting trial

counsel’s ineffectiveness in failing to object to inflammatory comments by the

prosecution during closing argument. See Appellant’s Supplemental Brief at

48-50. Plummer argues that the prosecution made a joke about his disability.

See id. at 48 (citing N.T., 2/11/15, at 143 (“I don’t think he can’t walk as

much as he wants you to think as he sort of stumbles his way up to the chair,

but he probably can’t run.”)). According to Plummer, the central issue for the

jury to decide was the credibility of the witnesses, and prosecutor’s statement

influenced the jury. See id. at 49-50. Plummer also claims that there was no

____________________________________________

4 We additionally note that Plummer’s claims J, R, T, and V in his supplemental
appellate brief merely incorporate prior sections of his argument, and he does
not articulate any new assertions. See Commonwealth v. Briggs, 12 A.3d
291, 342 (Pa. 2011) (stating that the appellate rules do not allow
incorporation by reference arguments and it “is an unacceptable manner of
appellate advocacy for the proper presentation of a claim for relief”).

                                          - 18 -
J-S40007-22
J-S40008-22

reasonable basis for either counsel’s failure to raise the issue, and that he was

prejudiced by the failure to object to the statement. See id. at 50.

            A prosecutor’s arguments to the jury are generally not a
      basis for the granting of a new trial unless the unavoidable effect
      of such comments would be to prejudice the jury, forming in their
      minds fixed bias and hostility towards the accused which would
      prevent them from properly weighing the evidence and rendering
      a true verdict.

            A prosecutor must have reasonable latitude in fairly
      presenting a case to the jury and must be free to present []
      arguments with logical force and vigor. The prosecutor is also
      permitted to respond to defense arguments. Finally, in order to
      evaluate whether the comments were improper, we do not look at
      the comments in a vacuum; rather we must look at them in the
      context in which they were made.

Commonwealth v. Solomon, 25 A.3d 380, 383 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citation

and brackets omitted).

      Here, the prosecutor made the statement in the context of the facts of

the case, noting that Plummer stopped chasing Elliot and allowed his two

cohorts to chase Elliot because Plummer cannot run. See N.T., 2/11/15, at

143. Importantly, the prosecutor emphasized that Plummer admitted that he

could not run. See id. The statement cited by Plummer does not in any way

indicate that the prosecutor was joking about Plummer’s disability. Therefore,

the contested statement was proper in the context of the evidence of the case

and Plummer’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective does not have arguable

merit. See Solomon, 25 A.3d at 383. Likewise, Plummer fails to establish

that this single statement prejudiced him where the evidence established that

as Elliot approached the vehicle in question, Plummer and two other men

                                     - 19 -
J-S40007-22
J-S40008-22

jumped out from behind some nearby bushes and confronted Elliot; the two

men, but not Plummer, chased Elliot across the street before they were able

to catch him and take the car keys from him; and Plummer drove the car away

from the scene. In light of the foregoing, Plummer’s ineffectiveness claims

regarding trial and PCRA counsel are without merit. See Chmiel, 30 A.3d at

1128.

        In summary, we conclude all of Plummer’s claims of PCRA court error

are either meritless or waived. We therefore affirm the orders dismissing his

amended PCRA petition.

        Orders affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 3/16/2023

                                    - 20 -