Court Opinion

ID: 9400189
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-07 16:09:37.542205+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:42.775412
License: Public Domain

J-S11003-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    LEO A. GARDNER                             :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 2259 EDA 2022

              Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 4, 2022
      In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Criminal Division at
                        No(s): CP-45-CR-0001172-2017

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

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:                                  FILED JUNE 07, 2023

       Appellant, Leo A. Gardner, appeals from the order entered on August 4,

2022, dismissing his first petition filed pursuant to the Post-Conviction Relief

Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.

       This Court previously set forth the facts of this case as follows:

       The Commonwealth charged Appellant with, inter alia, [attempted
       murder, aggravated assault, terroristic threats, and simple
       assault1] following his violent attack of Brittany Seitz. Appellant's
       two-day jury trial commenced on June 19, 2018.

       At trial, the Commonwealth presented the testimony of a number
       of witnesses including eyewitnesses Hericson Torres, Brandon
       Caron, and State Troopers Anthony Paciotti and Ian MacMillan.
       Appellant presented the testimony of an investigator, Joseph
       Alercia, and also testified on his own behalf, asserting that he
       [acted] in self-defense.

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 901(a)—2501; 2702(a)(1); 2706(a)(1); and 2701(a)(3),
respectively.
J-S11003-23

     We glean[ed] the following relevant facts from our review of the
     record, including the trial court's Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) [o]pinion.
     Appellant and Brittany Seitz spent April 26, 2017, together
     ingesting drugs, including methamphetamine, and driving around
     Monroe County. Late that evening, or in the early hours of April
     27, 2017, Ms. Seitz pulled her car over to the side of the road,
     whereupon she and Appellant engaged in a physical altercation.

     Hericson Torres's testimony revealed that, in the early morning
     hours of April 27, 2017, his wife woke him after she heard a female
     screaming outside their home. Mr. Torres testified that he walked
     outside and heard a female voice screaming for help. At around
     3:30 [a.m.], he went to investigate the voice, bringing with him a
     flashlight, a tee-ball bat, and a knife.

     Brandon Caron testified that he also left his home in the early
     hours of that morning to investigate after hearing a female voice
     yell, “Help. He's killing me.” He testified that when he arrived he
     found Appellant on top of Ms. Seitz, dragging her into the woods,
     biting her, with his fingers in her eyes. Ms. Seitz was lifeless, and
     Mr. Caron testified that he believed she was dead. Mr. Caron
     further testified that he yelled at Appellant to stop, and Appellant
     responded by stating something akin to “get out of here. I
     stabbed her in the throat ... I slit her throat ... get out of here or
     I'll kill you too.”

     Mr. Torres testified that, when he arrived on the scene, Mr. Caron
     reported that Appellant was eating Ms. Seitz, and that, due to the
     darkness, Mr. Torres thought Appellant may actually have been a
     bear. Mr. Torres also testified that he thought Ms. Seitz was dead.

     The testimony indicated that Mr. Torres and Mr. Caron attempted
     to stop Appellant by hitting, pushing, and kicking him. Their
     efforts were, however, unsuccessful. Instead, Appellant warned
     them to mind their own business and threatened to kill them.

     At approximately 4:00 [a.m.], Troopers Anthony Paciotti and Ian
     McMillan arrived at the scene. They observed Appellant continue
     to attack Ms. Seitz while she lay lifeless on the ground. Trooper
     Paciotti saw Appellant on his hands and knees on top of Ms. Seitz,
     with his face in contact with Ms. Seitz's face. Appellant refused
     Trooper Paciotti's command to get off Ms. Seitz. Trooper Paciotti
     proceeded to kick Appellant off Ms. Seitz. Trooper Paciotti
     observed that Appellant was [incoherent and] naked except for
     his underwear[.]

                                     -2-
J-S11003-23

      Once they removed Ms. Seitz from the scene, the troopers
      observed that Appellant had partially amputated Ms. Seitz's nose,
      and she had sustained multiple bruises and bites. Both of her
      eyes were swollen shut. They transported her to the hospital.
      Troopers also took Appellant to the hospital where doctors treated
      him for a collapsed lung, head trauma, broken bones, and multiple
      stab wounds. Lab tests revealed that Appellant had toxic levels
      of methamphetamine in his blood.

      In his case-in-chief, Appellant claimed that he had been acting in
      self-defense.

Commonwealth v. Gardner, 2019 WL 3801485, at *1–2 (Pa. Super. 2019)

(unpublished memorandum) (original footnotes and record citations omitted).

      On June 21, 2018, the jury convicted Appellant of the aforementioned

crimes.   On August 16, 2018, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an

aggregate term of 12 ½ to 25 years of imprisonment. We affirmed Appellant’s

conviction in an unpublished memorandum on August 13, 2019.                  See

Commonwealth v. Gardner, 2019 WL 3801485 (Pa. Super. 2019)

(unpublished memorandum). By per curiam order entered on June 1, 2020,

the   Pennsylvania    Supreme      Court    denied   further    review.      See

Commonwealth v. Gardner, 235 A.3d 271 (Pa. 2020) (per curiam).

      On October 19, 2020, Appellant filed a timely pro se PCRA petition. The

PCRA court appointed counsel who filed an amended PCRA petition on April

19, 2021.     On April 8, 2022, the PCRA court held a hearing regarding

allegations that trial counsel was ineffective for: (1) not calling several

witnesses to testify at trial, including the victim Brittany Seitz, as well as Ray

Ianuale and Dennis Blanchette, (2) improperly supervising a private

investigator hired to procure the missing witnesses and failing to call the

                                      -3-
J-S11003-23

investigator as a trial witness, (3) failing to secure a medical expert, (4)

inappropriately calling several character witnesses who subsequently divulged

Appellant’s prior criminal history on cross-examination, and (5) failing to

inform Appellant of a potential conflict of interest. Only Appellant and trial

counsel testified at the PCRA hearing. By order and opinion entered on August

4, 2022, the PCRA court denied relief. This timely appeal resulted. 2

       On appeal, Appellant claims the PCRA court erred or abused its

discretion in dismissing his PCRA petition because trial counsel was ineffective

for:
       1. Failing to subpoena and call several vital witnesses to testify at
          trial, including, Brittany Seitz, Raymond Ianuale, and Dennis
          Blanchette[;]

       2. Failure to supervise investigator Joseph Chillari and to
          subpoena him to testify at trial[;]

       3. Failing to consult with a medical expert regarding the injuries
          sustained by [] Appellant during the incident in question[;]

       4. Calling multiple character witnesses at trial who           were
          cross-examined about Appellant’s criminal history[;]

       5. Failing to inform Appellant of a potential conflict regarding her
          representation of the victim, Brittany Seitz on an unrelated
          matter[;]

Appellant’s Brief at 4-5.
____________________________________________

2   Counsel for Appellant filed a notice of appeal on September 2, 2022. On
September 7, 2022, the PCRA court entered an order directing Appellant to
file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Counsel for Appellant complied timely on September 28,
2022. On September 28, 2022, the PCRA court issued a statement in lieu of
an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), relying upon its earlier opinion filed
on August 4, 2022, as rationale for its decision to deny relief.

                                           -4-
J-S11003-23

      All of Appellant’s claims allege that trial counsel was ineffective.         As

such, we employ the following standards of appellate review:

      Our standard of review from the grant or denial of post-conviction
      relief is limited to examining whether the PCRA court's
      determination is supported by the evidence of record and whether
      it is free of legal error. To prevail on ineffective assistance of
      counsel claims, the PCRA petitioner must plead and prove, by a
      preponderance of the evidence, three elements: (1) the
      underlying legal claim has arguable merit; (2) counsel had no
      reasonable basis for his action or inaction; and (3) the petitioner
      suffered prejudice because of counsel's action or inaction. The
      law presumes counsel was effective and PCRA petitioners bear the
      burden of pleading and proving each of the three factors by a
      preponderance of the evidence. A claim of ineffectiveness will be
      denied if the petitioner's evidence fails to meet any of these
      prongs.

Commonwealth v. Krock, 282 A.3d 1132, 1137 (Pa. Super. 2022) (internal

citations, quotations, ellipses, and brackets omitted).           An appellate court

“view[s]   the   evidence   of   record   in   a   light   most   favorable   to   the

Commonwealth, as the prevailing party below[, and is] bound by the PCRA

court's credibility determinations, unless those determinations are not

supported by the record[.]” Commonwealth v. Flor, 259 A.3d 891, 902 (Pa.

2021) (citation omitted). We review the PCRA court's legal conclusions de

novo. Id. (citation omitted).

      In his first issue presented, Appellant contends that trial counsel was

ineffective for failing to call Brittany Seitz, Raymond Ianuale, and Dennis

Blanchette to testify at trial. Appellant’s Brief at 10-15.       Regarding Brittany

Seitz, Appellant asserts that “Appellant and [Seitz] were the only two (2)

people present for the entire altercation in question, and the fact that the

                                      -5-
J-S11003-23

victim was not called to testify was so prejudicial to [Appellant] that he was

not given a fair trial.”   Id. at 12. Next, Appellant claims that trial counsel

was ineffective for failing to call Raymond Ianuale to testify at trial. Id. at

13-14. Appellant claims that Ianuale, a man who knew the victim, appeared

at the crime scene when Brandon Caron and Hericson Torres interceded. Id.

at 13. According to Appellant, Ianuale would have testified that he saw either

Caron or Torres wielding a knife. Id. Further, Appellant avers that, while

incarcerated, Dennis Blanchette, another inmate, “approached him, and

stated that he knew the alleged victim, Ms. Seitz, and that Ms. Seitz is the

leader of a crew that … would rob people, stab them, and then leave them for

dead.” Id. at 14 (record citations omitted).       Appellant claims trial counsel

was ineffective for failing to call Blanchette at trial. Id.

      In his second (and related) issue, Appellant claims trial counsel was

ineffective for failing to “oversee” defense investigator, Joseph Chillari, and to

call him as a witness at trial “as to all of the interviews he conducted, and

everything that he gathered throughout his investigation.” Id. at 17. Taken

together, Appellant asserts in his two opening claims that he was prejudiced

by counsel’s failure at trial to present testimony from Seitz, Ianuale,

Blanchette, and Chillari. Id. at 12-17.

      We have previously determined:

      To prevail on a claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to call
      a witness, Appellant must demonstrate that: (1) the witness
      existed, (2) the witness was available to testify on his behalf, (3)
      counsel knew or should have known about the witness, (4) the

                                       -6-
J-S11003-23

      witness was willing to testify on his behalf, and (5) the absence of
      the testimony prejudiced him.

      Trial counsel's failure to call a particular witness does not
      constitute ineffective assistance without some showing that the
      absent witness's testimony would have been beneficial or helpful
      in establishing the asserted defense.

Commonwealth v. Prater, 256 A.3d 1274, 1284 (Pa. Super. 2021), appeal

denied, 268 A.3d 386 (Pa. 2021) (internal citations and quotations omitted).

      The PCRA court determined that Appellant failed to meet his burden of

showing prejudice as a result of trial counsel’s failure to call the witnesses

listed above. See PCRA Court Opinion, 8/4/2022, at 10. As the PCRA court

noted initially, Appellant did not call any witnesses at the PCRA hearing and,

instead, testified on his own behalf as to “what he believed they would have

said if called to testify.”   Id.   The Commonwealth objected to Appellant’s

testimony as hearsay, the PCRA court agreed and, therefore, did not consider

the testimony. Id.     Instead, the court concluded that Appellant did not

produce sufficient evidence to support his ineffectiveness claims which rested

on counsel’s failure to call certain witnesses. Id. Additionally, the PCRA court

recalled that “two people completely unknown to [Appellant], testified

convincingly [at trial] about what they saw at the scene including that [the

victim] appeared dead and that despite numerous physical efforts, they were

unable to stop [Appellant] from continuing to assault her.”         Id. at 18.

Moreover, “[t]he officers who [later] arrived at the scene [confirmed] that far

from self-defense, [Appellant] had to be restrained from continuing to attack

the lifeless victim.” Id.

                                       -7-
J-S11003-23

      We agree with the PCRA court that trial counsel was not ineffective in

failing to call the witnesses Appellant lists on appeal. Appellant has not offered

evidence which shows that the uncalled witnesses would have aided his efforts

to prove self-defense at trial. Moreover, with regard to defense investigator,

Chillari, the PCRA court concluded that trial counsel had a reasonable basis to

forgo calling him at trial because “he had no additional information which

would have been admissible over hearsay objections” and that Appellant

further admitted at the PCRA hearing that “Mr. Chillari did everything

[Appellant] asked him to do and that he was satisfied” with the investigation.

Id. at 20.    Finally, we note that “Appellant presented the testimony of

an[other] investigator, Joseph Alercia” at trial. Gardner, 2019 WL 3801485,

at *1.   For the foregoing reasons, Appellant fails to show that he was

prejudiced by trial counsel’s failure to call the aforementioned witnesses at

trial. As such, Appellant’s first two appellate issues lack merit.

      Next, Appellant asserts that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to

consult a medical expert about the “severe and life-threatening injuries” he

sustained which were “indicative of self-defense.” Appellant’s Brief at 18-22.

Appellant posits that such evidence was necessary to prove that he was not

the aggressor, that it was reasonable for him to believe that his life was

threatened by deadly force, and, ultimately, that his claims of self-defense or

imperfect self-defense possessed merit. Id. at 18.

      Our Supreme Court has determined:

                                      -8-
J-S11003-23

      Trial counsel need not introduce expert testimony on his client's
      behalf if he is able effectively to cross-examine prosecution
      witnesses and elicit helpful testimony. Additionally, trial counsel
      will not be deemed ineffective for failing to call a medical, forensic,
      or scientific expert merely to critically evaluate expert testimony
      that was presented by the prosecution.

Commonwealth v. Williams, 141 A.3d 440, 464 (Pa. 2016) (citation

omitted).

      Here, as the PCRA court recounted:

      This case did not hinge upon which party sustained worse injuries.
      [Trial counsel] testified that it was her strategy to bring in
      evidence of [Appellant’s] injuries through eyewitnesses and
      [Appellant] himself. [The trial court] believe[d] it was sufficient
      for the jury to consider. As previously opined[,] even with
      evidence of [Appellant’s] numerous injuries, he was unable to
      support a claim of self-defense due to his repeated failure to
      retreat once it was safe to do so. Even with a medical expert to
      testify as to [Appellant’s] own injuries it is unlikely the end result
      of the trial would have been any different.

PCRA Court Opinion, 8/4/2022, at 21 (record citation omitted).

      We agree with the PCRA court’s analysis. As made clear in our decision

on direct appeal, set forth above, two eyewitnesses testified that when they

came to the crime scene, Appellant was attacking the victim, biting and/or

eating her face and pushing his fingers into her eyes, while she appeared

lifeless on the ground. Approximately one-half hour later, when police arrived,

Appellant was still attacking the victim as she lay limp. A claim of self-defense

or imperfect self-defense requires proof that “the defendant was not the

aggressor and did not violate a duty to retreat safely.”     Commonwealth v.

Busanet, 54 A.3d 35, 56 (Pa. 2012) (citations omitted). Evidence from a

                                       -9-
J-S11003-23

medical expert showing that Appellant also sustained serious injuries during

the assault would not refute the fact that Appellant violated his duty to retreat

safely which, in turn, defeated his self-defense claim. Moreover, trial counsel

elicited largely identical medical testimony from Appellant regarding the

extent of his injuries.   Therefore, we agree with the PCRA court that trial

counsel was not ineffective for failing to call a medical expert at trial.

      In his fourth issue presented, Appellant claims that trial counsel was

ineffective for calling two of the eight character witnesses who testified on

Appellant’s behalf at trial. Appellant’s Brief at 22-23. Appellant argues that

six of the testifying character witnesses did not know about his past, criminal

history which included convictions for receiving stolen property, resisting

arrest, and recklessly endangering another person. Id. at 22. Two of the

character witnesses, however, were aware of Appellant’s past criminal history

and their favorable character testimony “open[ed] the door to Appellant’s past

convictions” upon cross-examination by the Commonwealth. Id.

      This Court has previously stated:

      It is clearly established that evidence of good character is to be
      regarded as evidence of substantive fact just as any other
      evidence tending to establish innocence and may be considered
      by the jury in connection with all of the evidence presented in the
      case on the general issue of guilt or innocence. Evidence of good
      character is substantive and positive evidence, not a mere make
      weight to be considered in a doubtful case, and, is an independent
      factor which may of itself engender reasonable doubt or produce
      a conclusion of innocence. Evidence of good character offered by
      a defendant in a criminal prosecution must be limited to his
      general reputation for the particular trait or traits of character
      involved in the commission of the crime charged.               The

                                      - 10 -
J-S11003-23

      cross-examination of such witnesses by the Commonwealth must
      be limited to the same traits. Such evidence must relate to a
      period at or about the time the offense was committed and must
      be established by testimony of witnesses as to the community
      opinion of the individual in question, not through specific acts or
      mere rumor.

                                      ***

      This [C]ourt has made clear that in a case where intent and
      credibility are decisive factors leading to either acquittal or
      conviction, the accused's reputation is of paramount importance.
      Indeed, evidence of good character may, in spite of all evidence
      to the contrary, raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury.

Commonwealth v. Luther, 463 A.2d 1073, 1077–1078 (Pa. Super. 1983)

(internal citations, quotations, original brackets omitted).

      On this issue, the PCRA court opined:

      [Appellant] was in a very difficult position taking this matter to
      trial. Multiple witnesses testified that he [] savagely attacked Ms.
      Seitz. His only avenue to counter the testimony was to testify
      himself. However, [Appellant’s] testimony had many problems;
      he admitted to having used drugs that day, his story involved
      multiple holes and inconsistencies, and he could not recall large
      portions of the event. [Appellant’s] credibility was a significant
      obstacle for the defense. Anything that could bolster his credibility
      would have been an asset. [The PCRA court found trial counsel]
      credible in her testimony that she went over the risks of
      introducing character witness testimony and she and [Appellant]
      agreed it was the right strategy to take at the time. [The PCRA
      court did] not find [Appellant] credible in his recollections
      concerning the character witnesses.

PCRA Court Opinion, 8/4/2022, at 23 (record citation omitted).

      Initially, we note that the PCRA court’s credibility determinations are

supported by the record and, therefore, we are bound by them. In this case,

Appellant’s reputation was of paramount importance and his intent and

credibility were decisive factors in this case. The PCRA court determined that

                                     - 11 -
J-S11003-23

trial counsel pursued a reasonable strategy in presenting evidence of

Appellant’s good character. Moreover, while “[s]ix of the eight [character]

witnesses were unaware of [Appellant’s criminal] background, [] all of them

agreed that [his prior record] did not affect their opinion of” Appellant’s

character for peacefulness. Id. at 22 (emphasis added). Appellant has not

shown that trial counsel lacked reasonable grounds for her action.

Accordingly, we deem Appellant’s fourth issue meritless.

      Finally, Appellant argues that trial counsel had a conflict of interest

because she represented the victim in a prior, unrelated matter. Appellant’s

Brief at 24-26. Appellant testified that, prior to trial, he witnessed trial counsel

speak “with the victim for over twenty minutes.” Id. at 25.

      The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has stated:

      An appellant cannot prevail on a preserved conflict of interest
      claim absent a showing of actual prejudice. Nevertheless, we
      presume prejudice when the appellant shows that trial counsel
      was burdened by an “actual”—rather than mere “potential”—
      conflict of interest.

      To show an actual conflict of interest, the appellant must
      demonstrate that: (1) counsel “actively represented conflicting
      interests”; and (2) those conflicting interests “adversely affected
      his lawyer's performance.” Clients' interests actually conflict when
      “during the course of representation” they “diverge with respect
      to a material factual or legal issue or to a course of action.”

Commonwealth v. Collins, 957 A.2d 237, 251 (Pa. 2008) (internal citations

omitted).

      Here, the PCRA court recognized:

                                      - 12 -
J-S11003-23

      [Trial counsel] was assigned to Ms. Seitz as a public defender,
      realized the conflict before a preliminary hearing could be held,
      and only spoke to Ms. Seitz long enough to [advise her that
      counsel would not be able to serve as her legal representative].
      [Trial counsel] testified credibly that she neither discussed [this
      case] with Ms. Seitz in any way, nor took steps to represent or
      obtain any information as to Ms. Seitz in her matter. As such,
      there was no conflict.

PCRA Court Opinion, 8/4/2022, at 24.

      We discern no error or abuse of discretion. There is simply no record

evidence of an actual conflict of interest or, stated differently, that trial counsel

actively represented conflicting interests which adversely affected her

performance at Appellant’s trial.        The PCRA court credited trial counsel’s

testimony that she only spoke with the victim to explain the potential conflict

and disavow her appointment as counsel for the victim before representing

Appellant. With no evidence of an actual conflict of interest, Appellant is not

entitled to relief on his final claim.

      Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 6/7/2023

                                         - 13 -