Court Opinion

ID: 9954161
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-25 18:12:56.740838+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:11:51.533722
License: Public Domain

J-S01028-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  NICOLI ANTONIO SANTANA                       :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 556 MDA 2023

             Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered March 14, 2023
      In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at
                       No(s): CP-06-CR-0004819-2017

BEFORE:      PANELLA, P.J.E., KUNSELMAN, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.:                   FILED: MARCH 25, 2024

       Nicoli Antonio Santana appeals from the order denying without a hearing

his first timely petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42

Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541–9546. We affirm.

       This Court previously summarized the pertinent facts as follows:

              On February 28, 2017, [Santana] entered DeCarlo’s Bar and
       Grill (“DeCarlo’s”) at around 8:50 p.m. [A few] hours later, on
       March 1, 2017 at around 1:00 a.m., Ian Moore (“Moore”), Miguel
       Colon (“Colon”), and Johnny Corchado (“Corchado”) met up at
       DeCarlo’s. As soon as Moore, Colon, and Corchado entered
       DeCarlo’s, [Santana] immediately stood up and walked to the
       back corner portion of DeCarlo’s. At approximately 1:10 a.m.
       when Moore went to the bathroom and came back to order a drink
       at the front of the bar, [Santana] moved to the other side of the
       bar close to the front door and waited leaning against the wall. In
       the almost five-hour term that [Santana] was at DeCarlo’s, [he]
       consumed three drinks total[.] Moore, Colon, and Corchado had

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S01028-24

     drinks and talked briefly at the bar and left DeCarlo’s through the
     front door at around 1:30 a.m.

           A few seconds after Moore, Colon, and Corchado left the bar,
     [Santana] followed them and lingered in the vestibule of the bar,
     leaning in and out of the doorway observing [the three men]
     walking through the parking lot. [Santana] then went down the
     steps and walked through the stone lot and approached Moore,
     Colon, and Corchado stalking the trio while hugging the side of
     the building. When [Santana] was about 15 feet from Moore,
     Colon, and Corchado, [Santana] pulled a handgun out and fired
     multiple shots at Moore.

            Corchado fled in the direction of DeCarlo’s while Moore and
     Colon fled in the direction of Cherry Street. One of the shots hit
     Colon on his left thigh and one of the shots hit Moore on his arm.
     Colon at that point fled toward his car while Moore fled toward S.
     3rd Street. [Santana] did not chase Colon but chased Moore onto
     zero hundred block of S. 3rd Street.

           [Santana] eventually caught up with Moore. At close range,
     [Santana] fired multiple shots at Moore[, who] tumbled down to
     the ground. [Santana] shot a total of ten rounds at Moore in the
     parking lot and in the vicinity of zero hundred block of S. 3rd
     Street, and as a result, Moore suffered three gunshot wounds.
     Two of them were in the chest and abdomen area.

           [Santana] started walking away from Moore, but then went
     back and pistol-whipped Moore, who was already on the ground.
     [Santana] left the scene, went back to his parked [car] on the 200
     block of Cherry Street and drove off. Officers responded to radio
     dispatch of shots fired and arrived at the zero hundred block of S.
     3rd Street. Officer Babbit and Officer White arrived at the scene
     and found Moore lying on the ground. Officers asked Moore some
     questions, but Moore was not able to give any answer as he was
     having a hard time breathing. Moore died as a result of the
     gunshot wounds to his chest and abdomen area.

Commonwealth v. Santana,         226 A.3d 645 (Pa. Super. 2020)(citations

omitted) (non-precedential decision at 1-2).

     Following his arrest, Santana was charged with multiple crimes,

including the first-degree murder of Moore. Santana’s trial began on January

                                    -2-
J-S01028-24

28, 2019. As part of his defense, Santana testified on his own behalf. He

informed the jury that, in 2003, Moore had shot him eight times and left him

“scarred and with a permanent limp.” Santana’s Brief at 9 (unnumbered).

Santana further testified that he had not seen Moore since that time. When

he approached Moore and tried to talk to him, Moore’s response caused him

to “snap,” and he just started shooting. Based on this testimony, Santana’s

trial counsel unsuccessfully sought a voluntary manslaughter instruction.

     The jury convicted Santana of first-degree murder and related charges.

On January 30, 2019, the trial court sentenced Santana to life imprisonment

and a consecutive term of three to twelve years of imprisonment. Santana

appealed. On January 21, 2020, this Court affirmed his judgment of sentence,

Santana, supra, and, on August 12, 2020, our Supreme Court denied his

petition for allowance of appeal. Commonwealth v. Santana, 237 A.3d 968

(Pa. 2020).

     On January 4, 2021, Santana filed a pro se PCRA petition, and the PCRA

court appointed counsel (“first PCRA counsel”).     After that attorney was

permitted to withdraw, the court appointed new counsel and granted him an

extension of time to file either amended petition or a “no-merit letter”

pursuant Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), and

Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc).

     On January 25, 2022, second PCRA counsel filed a Turner/Finley letter

and motion to withdraw. Meanwhile, on August 22, 2022, privately-retained,

third PCRA counsel entered his appearance. On September 22, 2022, the

                                    -3-
J-S01028-24

PCRA court granted second PCRA counsel’s request to withdraw.               On

September 27, 2022, the PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of its

intent to dismiss Santana’s petition without a hearing. On November 7, 2022,

third PCRA counsel filed a response to the court’s Rule 907 notice. By order

entered March 14, 2023, the PCRA court denied Santana’s petition. This pro

se appeal followed.1 Both Santana and the PCRA court have complied with

Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

       Santana raises one issue on appeal, which we reproduce verbatim:

       1. Was trial counsel, direct appeal counsel, and P.C.R.A. counsel
          all ineffective assistance of counsel’s?

Santana’s Brief at 2 (unnumbered).

       This Court’s standard of review for an order dismissing a PCRA petition

calls for us to “determine whether the ruling of the PCRA court is supported

by the evidence and free of legal error. The PCRA court’s factual findings will

not be disturbed unless there is no support for the findings in the certified

record.” Commonwealth v. Webb, 236 A.3d 1170, 1176 (Pa. Super. 2020)

(citing Commonwealth v. Barndt, 74 A.3d 185, 191–92 (Pa. Super. 2013)).

____________________________________________

1 The PCRA court denied Santana’s PCRA petition on March 14, 2023,      after
permitting second PCRA counsel to withdraw pursuant to Turner/Finley,
supra. Santana filed his pro se notice of appeal on April 14, 2023, one day
late. Nonetheless, our review of the lower court docket does not contain any
indication that the order was served upon Santana. In this circumstance, we
will consider the appeal timely. See generally, Commonwealth v. Midgley,
289 A.3d 1111 (Pa. 2023).

                                           -4-
J-S01028-24

             The PCRA court has discretion to dismiss a petition without
       a hearing when the court is satisfied that there are no genuine
       issues concerning any material fact, the defendant is not entitled
       to post-conviction collateral relief, and no legitimate purpose
       would be served by further proceedings. [See Pa.R.Crim.P.
       909(B)(2).] To obtain reversal of a PCRA court’s decision to
       dismiss a petition without a hearing, an appellant must show that
       he raised a genuine issue of fact which, if resolved in his favor,
       would have entitled him to relief, or that the court otherwise
       abused its discretion in denying a hearing.

Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 108 A.3d 739, 750 (Pa. 2014) (citations

omitted).

       Santana raises a layered claim of ineffectiveness of counsel.        See

Commonwealth v. Bradley, 261 A.3d 381, 401 (Pa. 2022) (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”).2 To obtain relief under the

PCRA premised on a claim that counsel was ineffective, a petitioner must

establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that counsel's ineffectiveness

so undermined the truth-determining process that no reliable adjudication of

guilt or innocence could have taken place. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 966

A.2d 523, 532 (Pa. 2009). “Generally, counsel’s performance is presumed to

____________________________________________

2 In his brief, Santana alleges “newly claimed evidence” of third PCRA
counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness. Although we conclude that Santana has
preserved this claim, Bradley, supra, it fails given our determination that all
of his claims of trial counsel’s ineffectiveness do not entitle him to post-
conviction relief. See infra.

                                           -5-
J-S01028-24

be constitutionally adequate, and counsel will only be deemed ineffective upon

a sufficient showing by the petitioner.” Id.

      In making a layered claim of ineffectiveness, a PCRA petitioner “must

properly argue each prong of the three-prong ineffectiveness test for each

separate attorney.” Commonwealth v. Rykard, 55 A.3d 1177, 1190 (Pa.

Super. 2012). “In determining a layered claim of ineffectiveness, the critical

inquiry is whether the first attorney that the defendant asserts was ineffective

did, in fact, render ineffective assistance of counsel.”   Commonwealth v.

Burkett, 5 A.3d 1260, 1270 (Pa. Super. 2010).            “If that attorney was

effective, then subsequent counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to

raise the underlying issue.” Id.

      We first address Santana’s claims of trial counsel’s ineffectiveness. The

tripartite test we apply is well-settled, and each prong of the test has been

explained as follows:

            The burden is on the [petitioner] to prove all three of the
      following prongs: (1) the underlying claim is of arguable merit;
      (2) that counsel has no reasonable strategic basis for his or her
      action or inaction; and (3) but for the errors and omissions of
      counsel, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the
      proceedings would have been different.

            We have explained that a claim has arguable merit where
      the factual averments, if accurate, could establish cause for relief.
      Whether the facts rise to the level of arguable merit is a legal
      determination.

            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

                                      -6-
J-S01028-24

         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.

                Prejudice is established if there is a reasonable probability
         that, but for counsel’s errors, the result of the proceeding would
         have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability
         sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.

Commonwealth v. Sandusky, 203 A.3d 1033, 1043-44 (Pa. Super. 2019)

(citations omitted; formatting altered).

         Although Santana phrases his ineffectiveness claims on appeal in

general terms, he raised specific claims of ineffectiveness in his pro se PCRA

petition, and, while we could not locate Santana’s Rule 1925(b)statement in

the certified record, the PCRA court, in lieu of a Rule 1925(a) opinion, states

that the issues raised by Santana in his statement were adequately addressed

by the PCRA court in its Rule 907 notice. As the three issues Santana argues

in his brief are discussed in the Rule 907 notice, we will address them

accordingly.

         In his first claim, Santana asserts that trial counsel was ineffective for

failing to “present an expert witness to support his two alternative defenses

at trial, specifically the defense of diminished capacity due to his mental

defect, of pas[t] traumas, and the defense of heat of passion.” Santana’s Brief

at   8    (unnumbered).       According    to   Santana,   although   trial   counsel

“appropriately counseled” him that he would need to testify in order to pursue

a diminished capacity defense, “trial counsel should have investigated and

presented expert testimony to support his diminished capacity defense by

                                          -7-
J-S01028-24

having an expert witness assist the jury in understanding [his] mental defect

suffered from [past traumas] of [a] 2003 incident.” Id. at 12. Regarding his

heat of passion claim, Santana asserts that “reasonable counsel would have

retained an expert to offer an opinion to address the elements of a heat of

passion defense.” Id. at 18.

     The PCRA court found no merit to Santana’s claim.         In its Rule 907

notice, the PCRA court explained:

            Though his petition references [a] 2003 attack, attached to
     his pro se petition, Santana includes juvenile records [from 1997-
     98] referencing a serious school yard fight that resulted in him
     being hospitalized with head injuries. While one of the attached
     reports indicated that, when he was seventeen, Santana was
     “functioning at the lower end of the low average range,” the report
     continued that “[i]n terms of drawing any conclusions about the
     impact of the head injury on current functioning, one must be
     cautious,” as the evaluator “ha[d] no available premorbid data to
     prove that [Santana], in fact, was functioning well prior to the
     head injury.” Ex. 5. Santana provides no further support for his
     claim, and no recent indication that he was mentally unfit to stand
     trial. The burden of proving a claim of ineffective assistance rests
     on the defendant. Santana falls far short in demonstrating that
     Trial Counsel was deficient in failing to request a psychiatric
     evaluation in this matter.

                                     ***

           [W]hile Santana has included records relating to head
     trauma received when he was a juvenile, there is no indication in
     the records that would demonstrate Santana was unable to
     formulate the specific intent to kill, as was required to establish a
     diminished capacity offense. Moreover, Santana’s own testimony
     contravenes such a defense.

           Santana testified that after observing [Moore] enter the bar,
     he initially hesitated, but then approached [Moore] to try to talk
     to him. When [Moore] responded in a way that Santana described
     as “cocky,” Santana stated that it “made me snap,” and that is
     when he followed [Moore], pulled out his firearm, and proceeded

                                     -8-
J-S01028-24

       to shoot [Moore] multiple times. Santana then caught up to
       [Moore] and admitted striking [Moore] several times with the
       firearm before getting into his car and driving away. While
       Santana admitted that he shot [Moore], which is necessary to a
       claim of diminished capacity, his testimony clearly indicates that
       his cognitive abilities of deliberation and premeditation were not
       so compromised as to vitiate his specific intent to kill. Likewise,
       while Santana admitted that he was intoxicated, the mere fact of
       intoxication does not give rise to a diminished capacity defense.
       We find that Santana’s claim of ineffectiveness of Trial Counsel for
       failure to call expert witnesses or to request a psychiatric
       evaluation lacks merit.

Rule 907 Notice, 9/27/22, at 11-13.3

       In addressing third PCRA counsel’s Rule 907 response, the PCRA court

reaffirmed that, “[Santana] failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by

any alleged ineffectiveness as his own testimony contravened a diminished

capacity defense.”      Order, 3/13/23, at 1 (unnumbered).      The PCRA court

further explained that an expert was not needed to testify regarding his heat

of passion defense given that “[Santana’s] own testimony demonstrated his

deliberate actions.” Id. at 2 (unnumbered). Finally, the PCRA court noted

that trial counsel “attempted to elicit a [heat of passion] defense and

requested the trial court to include a voluntary manslaughter instruction,

which the trial court denied, in contradiction to [Santana’s] ineffectiveness

claim.” Id.

____________________________________________

3 The Honorable Paul M. Yatron authored Santana’s Rule 907 notice. Following
Judge Yatron’s death, the case was reassigned to the Honorable Patrick T.
Barrett. Judge Barrett provided additional explanation regarding third PCRA
counsel’s Rule 907 response and entered the order dismissing Santana’s
appeal.

                                           -9-
J-S01028-24

      Our review of the record supports the PCRA court’s conclusions

regarding Santana’s first ineffectiveness claim.      Claims of trial counsel’s

ineffectiveness are not self-proving and therefore cannot be raised in a

vacuum. See generally, Commonwealth v. Pettus, 424 A.2d 1332 (Pa.

1981). In order to establish that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to

investigate and/or call a witness or expert witness at trial, a PCRA petitioner

must demonstrate that:

      (1) the witness existed; (2) the witness was available to testify
      for the defense; (3) counsel knew of, or should have known of,
      the existence of the witnesses; (4) the witness was willing to
      testify for the defense; and (5) absence of the testimony of the
      witness was so prejudicial that it deprived a defendant of a fair
      trial.

Commonwealth v. Matias, 63 A.3d 807, 810-11 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation

omitted). “Prejudice” as used in this test, requires the petitioner to “show

how the uncalled witnesses’ testimony would have been beneficial under the

circumstances of the case.” Commonwealth v. Selenski, 228 A.3d 8, 16

(Pa. Super. 2020) (citation omitted). Thus, “the petitioner’s burden is to show

that testimony provided by the uncalled witnesses would have been helpful to

the defense.” Id.

      Here, Santana failed to meet any of these factors, as he failed to identify

any expert that would have supported either of his defenses at trial.        Our

Supreme Court has long recognized that “[w]hen a defendant claims that

some sort of expert testimony should have been introduced at trial, the

defendant must articulate what evidence was available and identify the

                                     - 10 -
J-S01028-24

witness who was willing to offer such evidence.” Commonwealth v. Keaton,

45 A.3d 1050, 1071 (Pa. 2012) (citation omitted). Thus, as Santana failed to

establish   his   burden,   his   first    ineffectiveness   claim   fails.   See

Commonwealth v. Clark, 961 A.2d 80, 94 (Pa. 2008) (explaining that, in

the absence of a sufficient proffer, a petitioner’s bare assertions would

inappropriately convert an evidentiary hearing into a “fishing expedition” for

possible exculpatory evidence).

      In his second issue, Santana asserts that trial counsel was ineffective

for coercing him to testify, thereby denying him his right not to do so. Santana

asserts trial counsel’s “misleading [caused him] to self-incriminate and [led]

to an unknowing confession that was used to convict [him] of premeditated

murder and all other charges with coercion of false hope of receiving the

voluntary manslaughter charge.”           Santana’s Brief at 20 (unnumbered).

Santana asserts that trial counsel had no reasonable basis for having him

testify, and that, but for his testimony, there is a reasonable probability that

the outcome would have been different. See id. at 20-21.

      In its Rule 907 notice, the PCRA court found no merit to Santana’s claim:

            Santana alleges that Trial Counsel informed him that the
      only way [he] would get a voluntary manslaughter instruction was
      to testify on his own behalf. Santana continues that when Trial
      Counsel requested the voluntary manslaughter charge be
      delivered to the jury, that the court denied the charge.

                                          ***

             There is no indication from the record that Trial Counsel
      interfered with Santana’s right to testify on his own behalf.
      Therefore, we view Santana’s claim as implicating Trial Counsel’s
      advice as being so unreasonable as to render his choice to testify
      involuntary and unknowing.

                                      - 11 -
J-S01028-24

            At trial, [the] court engaged in a colloquy to determine
     whether Santana wished to testify on his own behalf, and whether
     he understood the ramifications of testifying and his right not to
     testify. During the colloquy, Santana acknowledged that he
     understood his absolute right not to testify and that if he did
     testify, he would be subject to cross-examination by the
     Commonwealth.

            It is clear from the record that Trial Counsel sought to
     establish a “heat of passion” defense, as Santana indicates that
     he wanted to present, through [his] own testimony as to his state
     of mind and arousal to sudden and intense passion prior to his
     shooting [Moore]. Santana has failed to demonstrate that Trial
     Counsel did not have a reasonable strategic basis for advising him
     to testify as it would be necessary for Santana to establish his own
     mental state at the time of the murder in order to assert the
     possible defense. Therefore, Santana, is not entitled to relief on
     this claim.

Rule 907 Notice, 9/27/22, at 9-11 (citations omitted).

     Our review of the record supports the PCRA court’s conclusions that

Santana knowingly agreed to testify, and that trial counsel had a reasonable

strategic basis for advising Santana to do so. As this Court has explained:

            The decision of whether or not to testify on one’s own behalf
     is ultimately to be made by the defendant after full consultation
     with counsel. In order to sustain a claim that counsel was
     ineffective for failing to advise the appellant of his rights in this
     regard, the appellant must demonstrate either that counsel
     interfered with his right to testify, or that counsel gave specific
     advice so unreasonable as to vitiate a knowing and intelligent
     decision to testify on his own behalf.

Commonwealth v. Michaud, 70 A.3d 862, 869 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation

omitted).

     The assertion that a killing was voluntary manslaughter is unavailable

without evidence that the defendant acted under sudden and intense passion

                                    - 12 -
J-S01028-24

at the time of the killing due to serious provocation from the victim. See 18

Pa.C.S.A. § 2503(a)(1).    Here, no Commonwealth witness provided such

evidence, and there was no eyewitness testimony presented by the defense.

Thus, to substantiate this defense, Santana was required to testify on his own

behalf, and he did so, after consultation with trial counsel. “[T]he mere fact

that this trial strategy was unsuccessful does not render it unreasonable.”

Commonwealth v. Spotz, 896 A.2d 1191, 1235 (Pa. 2006) (citation

omitted). Thus, Santana’s second ineffectiveness claim fails.

      In his third and final ineffectiveness claim, Santana asserts that trial

counsel was ineffective for failing to request a private investigator “to

investigate the case and the shooting incident involving [him] and [Moore] at

the Whipping Post Bar back in 2003, when [he] was brutally shot eight times

by [Moore] and to locate potential witnesses to the shooting case in 2017 and

the shooting case in 2003.” Santana’s Brief at 21 (unnumbered). He then

refers to four exhibits he attached to his pro se PCRA petition from witnesses

interviewed involving the 2003 incident. According to Santana, “[t]he jury

would [have] heard from these witnesses that [Moore] was the man who shot

[him] eight times in 2003 and [would have given] credibility to this

testimony.” Id. at 22.

      Counsel has a duty to undertake reasonable investigations or make

reasonable decisions that render particular investigations unnecessary.

Commonwealth v. Basemore, 744 A.2d 717, 713 (Pa. 2000) (citation

omitted). As this Court has summarized:

                                    - 13 -
J-S01028-24

      The failure to investigate presents an issue of arguable merit
      where the record demonstrates that counsel did not perform an
      investigation. It can be unreasonable per se to conduct no
      investigation into known witnesses.         Importantly, a [PCRA]
      petitioner still must demonstrate prejudice. To demonstrate
      prejudice where the allegation is the failure to interview a witness,
      the petitioner must show that there is a reasonable probability
      that the testimony the witness would have provided would have
      led to a different outcome at trial.

Commonwealth v. Pander, 100 A.3d 626, 638-39 (Pa. Super. 2014)

(citation omitted).

      As with his second issue, Santana failed to meet his burden of

establishing trial counsel’s ineffectiveness. Matias, supra. As noted above,

ineffectiveness claims are not self-proving. Pettus, supra. A PCRA petitioner

claiming they received ineffective assistance of counsel must allege sufficient

facts from which a court can determine counsel’s effectiveness. Pa.R.Crim.P.

902(A)(12). Where the facts do not appear of record, the defendant must

identify “any affidavits, documents, and other evidence showing such facts[.]”

Pa.R.Crim.P. 902(A)(12)(b);      Pettus, supra      (explaining that when a

defendant claims ineffectiveness they must set forth an offer to prove facts

upon which a reviewing court can conclude that trial counsel may have been

ineffective).

      Although Santana attached statements taken from witnesses to the

2003 incident, he has not asserted that trial counsel knew of them or that any

of them was available and willing to testify fourteen years later. Additionally,

Santana has not identified or proffered any eyewitness willing to testify to his

                                     - 14 -
J-S01028-24

2017 shooting of Moore which gave rise to his criminal convictions here.

Thus, Santana’s third claim of ineffectiveness fails.

       Finally, in his brief, Santana states he “incorporates by reference” his

fourth claim he raised in his pro se PCRA petition, asserting appellate counsel’s

ineffective for not adequately developing his sufficiency claim, and his fifth

claim raised in his petition, alleging prosecutorial misconduct.           Such

incorporation does not properly preserve the issues for appellate review. See

Pa.R.A.P. 2119(b); Commonwealth v. Alsop, 799 A.2d 135-36 (Pa. Super.

2002) (explaining that this court will not act as the appellant’s counsel; an

appellant must develop his argument so that meaningful review is possible).

       In sum, because all three of Santana’s claims of trial counsel fail, and

his claim regarding appellate counsel is not preserved,4 Santana’s layered

claim of PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness likewise fails. Thus, the PCRA court

correctly denied his PCRA petition, and we therefore affirm the order denying

Santana post-conviction relief.

       Order affirmed.

____________________________________________

4 Even if preserved, Santana’s claim of appellate counsel’s ineffectiveness
would merit no relief. In his direct appeal, we discussed and rejected
Santana’s sufficiency claim, despite appellate counsel’s failure to address any
specific element of first-degree murder. See Santana, supra.

                                          - 15 -
J-S01028-24

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 03/25/2024

                           - 16 -