Court Opinion

ID: 9753451
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:14:39.127387+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:36.831110
License: Public Domain

BOWES, J.,
Concurring and Dissenting.
¶ 1 While I agree that Appellant’s only avenue of relief was by means of the PCRA, I dissent from the majority’s decision to remand this case.
¶2 The majority first remands due to the trial court’s failure to conduct an evi-dentiary hearing on the ineffectiveness claim. A hearing is not required automatically on a claim of ineffectiveness; rather, to justify an evidentiary hearing with respect to assertions of ineffectiveness of trial counsel, an offer of proof must be made that provides sufficient facts upon which a reviewing court can conclude that trial counsel may have been ineffective. Commonwealth v. Durst, 522 Pa. 2, 559 A.2d 504 (1989); Commonwealth v. Lott, 398 Pa.Super. 573, 581 A.2d 612 (1990). Since there is not a sufficient offer of proof in this case upon which this Court, as the reviewing court, could conclude that counsel may have been ineffective, I do not believe that a hearing on the ineffectiveness claim is necessary.
¶ 3 The majority also remands since the trial court failed to issue a notice of its intent to dismiss the petition without a hearing. A hearing was conducted pertaining to whether Appellant requested counsel to file a direct appeal. Therefore, notice under Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(1) was not required.
¶ 4 Finally, the majority concludes a remand is necessary since the PCRA court did not review the ineffectiveness claim when it had jurisdiction to do so. We routinely review allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel raised for the first time on appeal. Furthermore, the trial court reviewed the claim in the context of the PCRA and concluded that it lacked merit. I agree with this conclusion.
¶ 5 In this case, Appellant claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present two alibi witnesses, Gloria Montgomery and Appellant’s son, Chester.
To prevail on a claim of trial counsel’s ineffectiveness to call a witness, the appellant must show: (1) that the witness existed; (2) that the witness was available; (3) that counsel was informed of the existence of the witness or should have known of the witness’s existence; (4) that the witness was prepared to cooperate and would have testified on appellant’s behalf; and (5) that the absence of the testimony prejudiced appellant.
Commonwealth v. Burton, 770 A.2d 771, 788 (Pa.Super.2001) (quoting Commonwealth v. Farmer, 758 A.2d 173, 179 (Pa.Super.2000)). “We will not grant relief based on an allegation that a certain witness may have testified in the absence of an affidavit to show that the witness would, in fact, testify.” Id.
¶ 6 In this case, Appellant did not present affidavits, and no relief is due. The court concluded that the ineffectiveness claim was meritless, and it did so in accor*1268dance with the standards applicable under the PCRA. Since I agree with this conclusion, a remand is an unnecessary expenditure of valuable judicial resources. Hence, I dissent.