Court Opinion

ID: 9365611
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-24 17:07:51.385801+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:46.388024
License: Public Domain

J-A01007-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :    IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :         PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    WALTER STANLEY REISS                       :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :    No. 446 EDA 2022

            Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered December 13, 2021
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Criminal Division
                       at No(s): CP-48-CR-0001288-2018

BEFORE:       LAZARUS, J., NICHOLS, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY McCAFFERY, J.:                            FILED JANUARY 24, 2023

        Walter Stanley Reiss (Appellant) appeals from the order entered in the

Northampton County Court of Common Pleas, denying his first, timely Post

Conviction Relief Act1 (PCRA) petition.            Appellant seeks relief from the

judgment of sentence imposed following his jury convictions of two counts of

arson.2 On appeal, he first claims the trial court erred in denying his request

for funds to retain a defense expert for trial, and that direct appeal counsel

was ineffective for not perfecting a direct appeal. We determine these two

issues are waived. Appellant also avers the PCRA court erred in denying relief

____________________________________________

1   42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9545.

218 Pa.C.S. § 3301(a)(1)(i) (recklessly placing firefighter in danger of death
or bodily injury), (c)(3) (collecting insurance).
J-A01007-23

on his allegations trial counsel was ineffective for: (1) not requesting trial

continuance in order to review missing discovery; (2) not presenting evidence

of his financial situation, to rebut the Commonwealth’s theory that Appellant

had a financial motive to start the fire; (3) not presenting pre-fire photographs

depicting renovations to the property; and (4) not objecting to testimony that

was impermissible for a lay witness. We affirm.

                             I. Facts & Jury Trial

      The PCRA court summarized the underlying facts as follows: Appellant

purchased “an older home” at 942 East Macada Road, Bethlehem,

Northampton County. PCRA Ct. Op., 12/13/21, at 3. Appellant intended to

perform, himself, extensive renovations, including “gutting the entire home,

relocating the bathroom and plumbing, re-wiring the home, [and] replacing

the plaster walls[,] ceilings, and . . . much of the flooring.” Id. Appellant, his

wife, and their young child lived in an apartment during the renovations. Id.

      In the early morning hours of May 28, 2015, the Bethlehem Police

Department and Bethlehem Fire Department responded to a fire at Appellant’s

property.

           When the police and fire department arrived, [Appellant] was
      the only person on the scene. [He was] in the . . . side yard[,]
      spraying the exterior wall with a garden hose. [Appellant’s]
      efforts were futile as the entire home was engulfed in flames,
      [and] flames could be seen coming out of the roof. [Firefighters
      went] inside the home to battle the fire. However, their actions
      were also futile. The home was completely destroyed by the fire.

                                   *    *    *

                                       -2-
J-A01007-23

             On the evening of the fire, [Appellant] told the police that he
        was the only person at the home. [Appellant] testified that he
        often remained at the home overnight, because of his devotion to
        the renovations. During the early morning hours, as [Appellant]
        watched television on a couch in the home’s first floor, [he]
        allegedly noticed the television flicker and believed [there was] an
        electrical interruption. In response, [Appellant] claimed[,] he
        exited the home to inspect the electrical transmission lines which
        were located behind his garage.

            [Appellant] testified that he walked away from the home for
        only minutes, [and] he came back to find it engulfed in flames. In
        response, he called 911 and attempted to put out the fire with a
        garden hose.

             By November 1, 2017, law enforcement filed the criminal
        charges [of two counts of arson] after having received several
        reports from fire investigators which concluded that the fire was
        set by human hand.

PCRA Ct. Op. at 3-4.

        This case was initially assigned to the Honorable President Judge Michael

Koury. The trial court conducted a hearing on August 24, 2018 — 11 days

before trial — to address defense pre-trial motions, including Appellant’s

petition for in forma pauperis status so that the court would pay the $3,500

fee for a defense expert witness. See N.T., 8/24/18, at 5, 20. Appellant’s

attorney, Christopher Koschier, Esquire (Trial Counsel), was privately

retained, but he argued Appellant had expended his resources in defending

against the charges. Id. at 5. Appellant testified he previously worked as an

expert witness, in the field of amusement park accidents,3 but his employment

____________________________________________

3   See N.T. Trial Vol. II, 9/5/18, at 180.

                                           -3-
J-A01007-23

“has been pretty much eliminated” because of his criminal charges, and

instead he was selling and buying items on eBay for profit.4 See id. at 11,

18. The trial court denied this motion. Id. at 21.

        At this same hearing, the trial court also considered a defense discovery

motion. Bethlehem Deputy Fire Chief Craig Baer testified he had with him his

own files pertaining to this case, which had not been requested by nor given

to either party. N.T., 8/24/18, at 26-27. The court suggested the case could

be continued for several months, but after consultation with Appellant, Trial

Counsel stated they wished to proceed to trial as scheduled. Id. at 31, 33.

        Five days later, on August 29, 2018, this case was reassigned to the

Honorable Stephen Baratta, and trial commenced six days thereafter, on

September 4th. See PCRA Ct. Op. at 2. Over the three-day jury trial, the

Commonwealth presented three expert witnesses: Deputy Fire Chief Baer; a

certified fire inspector; and a forensic electrical engineer and certified fire and

explosion inspector.5 The PCRA court summarized:

             Deputy Chief Baer testified [that] his department vigorously
        fought the fire[.] In doing so, he opined[,] his firefighters were
        at risk of life. Fortunately, none were injured. In addition, he
        testified the fire’s origins were suspicious prompting an
        investigation concerning potential arson.

____________________________________________

4Appellant also stated he “can’t leave [his] home without being on camera[,]”
as he was “afraid of being targeted.” N.T., 8/24/18, at 18-19.

5   See N.T. Trial Vol. II, 9/5/18, at 76, 78-79.

                                           -4-
J-A01007-23

            Arson was suspected for multiple reasons.           First, the
       investigation found no evidence of an electrical origin. Second,
       the second and third floors/ceilings [were] cut [a]way against a
       side wall[,] creating a chimney-like route for the flames to quickly
       race [up] the three story home . . . to the exposed roof joists.
       Third, at the base of the hole on the first floor, [Appellant] had
       piled and stored flammable materials including discarded wood
       and mattresses.

            Fourth, the portion of the floor on the first floor, where the
       flammable materials were stored, was completely burned away,
       indicating to the investigators that the missing (burned up) floor
       area was the origin of the fire. The investigators reasoned that
       given the burn patterns, the fire burned in an upward trajectory
       consuming the rest of the house and, with the exception of the
       point of origin, the rest of the wooden flooring on the first floor
       remained intact and was unconsumed by the fire.

            Fifth, near the point of origin, the inspectors found a 5 gallon
       “Jerry can” of gasoline that was . . . about half full.[6] The can had
       no cap[.] Further, the can’s burn pattern indicated that the can
       was half full throughout the fire. There was much testimony about
       the missing gas cap and the fact that the can of gasoline, located
       close to the point of origin and in the center of a massive fire, did
       not ignite during the fire. The experts also testified that if a
       flammable liquid had been applied to the materials at the point of
       origin, it could not have been detectable because the floor and
       other flammable materials were completely consumed by the fire.
       Thus, the experts testified that they did not and could not test for
       the presence of flammable liquids at the point of origin.

           The Commonwealth also presented evidence that [Appellant]
       had a financial motive to burn down his home to collect insurance
       proceeds.

            The Commonwealth’s witnesses were cross-examined by
       [Appellant’s] trial counsel. Trial [C]ounsel’s theory was the cause
       of the fire was either an electrical short or other defect associated
       with an electrical socket . . . on the wall several feet away from
____________________________________________

6At the PCRA hearing, Appellant’s expert witness explained that a jerry can is
a five-gallon steel can, commonly used to store gasoline. N.T., 8/9/21, at 14.

                                           -5-
J-A01007-23

     the alleged point of origin[,] or a window air conditioner that
     was . . . plugged into that socket. [Trial C]ounsel also argued that
     the presence of . . . combustible materials . . . at the point of
     origin under the ceiling holes[ ] was an innocent by-product of the
     renovation. This alternate theory was vigorously argued through
     cross-examination with the experts and in . . . closing argument.

PCRA Ct. Op. at 5-7 (paragraph breaks added).

     Appellant testified in his own defense, denying that he started the fire.

“Most of his cross-examination involved his renovation work and financial

status.” PCRA Ct. Op. at 7.

     The jury found Appellant guilty of both counts of arson — risking the life

of a firefighter and collecting insurance proceeds. On October 19, 2018, the

trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 33 to 72 months’ imprisonment.

The court also imposed restitution as follows: (1) $172,046.17 to Appellant’s

insurance company, State Farm; and (2) $13,761.25 to the Bethlehem Fire

Department.

     Following a series of attorneys’ withdrawals and appointments,

Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion while represented by privately

retained counsel, Gerald Stein, Esquire. See PCRA Ct. Op. at 8-9.

                              II. Direct Appeal

     We review the ensuing, protracted procedural history in chronological

order.   Attorney Stein filed a premature notice of appeal, before the post-

sentence motion was ruled on. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 720, cmt. (“No direct appeal

may be taken by a defendant while his or her post-sentence motion is

pending.”).    On   March     11,   2020,   this   Court   quashed   the   appeal.

                                      -6-
J-A01007-23

Commonwealth v. Reiss, 856 EDA 2019 (unpub. memo.) (Pa. Super. Mar.

11, 2020), appeal discontinued, 197 MT 2020 (Pa. Sept. 28, 2020). Next, on

April 27th, Appellant filed a counseled untimely petition for allowance of

appeal with our Supreme Court.7

       On June 3, 2020, the trial court entered a final order dismissing the

outstanding post-sentence motion. Meanwhile, Attorney Stein withdrew his

appearance, and the trial court appointed Tyree Blair, Esquire, to represent

Appellant.    On August 17, 2020, the trial court conducted a hearing to

determine how Appellant wished to proceed. The court informed Appellant it

could reinstate his direct appeal rights, but following a colloquy, Appellant

stated he wished to “waive” his direct appeal rights and instead file a PCRA

petition. PCRA Ct. Op. at 7-9. On August 19th, the trial court issued an order

memorializing Appellant’s decision. We note that throughout this time, the

petition for allowance of appeal remained pending before our Supreme Court.

                              III. PCRA Proceedings

       On September 23, 2020, Appellant filed a counseled PCRA petition,

which: (1) challenged the trial court’s denial of funds for a defense expert;

and (2) raised 13 separate claims of Trial Counsel’s ineffective assistance.

____________________________________________

7The 30-day period for Appellant’s filing of a petition for allowance of appeal
ended on April 10, 2020. See Pa.R.A.P. 1113(a).

                                           -7-
J-A01007-23

Five days later, on September 28th, Appellant filed a counseled praecipe with

our Supreme Court to discontinue his petition for allowance of appeal.

       The PCRA court conducted evidentiary hearings on August 9 and 24,

2021.8 Appellant and Trial Counsel testified. Appellant also called an expert

in arson investigation, John Lentini, whom Appellant had previously desired to

retain as an expert witness for trial. Mr. Lentini testified as to his opinion why

three of the Commonwealth’s experts’ theories were wrong, but, as the PCRA

court points out, he did not offer his own opinion as to the cause or point of

origin of the fire. See N.T., 8/9/21, at 10; PCRA Ct. Op. at 14.

       The PCRA court denied Appellant’s PCRA petition on December 13, 2021.

On December 23rd, Appellant filed a counseled motion for reconsideration,

which the court did not rule upon. The 30-day period to file a notice of appeal

ended on Wednesday, January 12, 2021. See Pa.R.A.P. 903(a).

       Thereafter, on January 20, 2021, Appellant filed a counseled application

to reinstate his appeal rights nunc pro tunc.       Appellant’s PCRA attorneys

acknowledged they mistakenly believed the motion for reconsideration would

toll Appellant’s appeal time, and argued “[t]his mistake should not be

attributed to [Appellant] and he was not correctly advised of his appeal rights.”

Appellant’s Application to Reinstate PCRA Appellate Rights Nunc Pro Tunc,

____________________________________________

8At the PCRA hearings, Appellant was represented by Rory Driscole, Esquire,
and John Waldron, Esquire. On appeal, he is currently represented by Michael
Diamondstein, Esquire.

                                           -8-
J-A01007-23

1/20/21, at 1.       The PCRA court permitted Appellant to appeal, 9 and he

complied with the subsequent order to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of

errors complained of on appeal.10

                 IV. Timeliness of Appellant’s PCRA Petition

       Preliminarily, we review the timeliness of Appellant’s September 23,

2020, PCRA petition.11        See Hipps, 274 A.3d at 1267 (“The PCRA time

____________________________________________

9 A petition to reinstate an appeal, from the denial of a PCRA petition, shall be
reviewed as a subsequent PCRA petition and is subject to the PCRA’s
timeliness requirements. See Commonwealth v. Robinson, 837 A.2d 1157,
1163 (Pa. 2003). Here, Appellant’s application to reinstate his PCRA appeal
rights did not invoke any of the timeliness exceptions. See 42 Pa.C.S. §
9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). Nevertheless, we note the application was promptly filed
eight days after his 30-day appeal period ended, and the application averred
the Commonwealth did not object to the requested relief.

      The Pennsylvania Courts have held counsel’s “errors and omissions
which preclude a petitioner from obtaining meaningful PCRA merits review
constitute ineffective assistance of counsel per se[,]” and such per se
ineffectiveness “can, in certain circumstances, satisfy the timeliness exception
of section 9545(b)(1)(ii).” Commonwealth v. Hipps, 274 A.3d 1263, 1268
(Pa. Super. 2022), appeal denied, 2022 WL 17423236 (Pa. 2022). Under the
circumstances presented, we conclude the PCRA court properly granted
Appellant’s application to reinstate his PCRA appeal rights nunc pro tunc.

10  Subsequently, Appellant’s PCRA counsel, Attorneys Driscole and Waldron,
filed an application with this Court to withdraw from representation, which was
granted on April 25, 2022. Consistent with this Court’s order, the PCRA court
conducted a hearing on May 12th and appointed Brian Monahan, Esquire, to
represent Appellant. However, present, privately-retained counsel, Attorney
Diamondstein, entered his appearance with this Court on June 23rd, and
Attorney Monahan was permitted to withdraw.

11Although Appellant did not include the timeliness of the PCRA petition in his
statement of questions involved, he addresses it as the first issue in his
argument section. See Appellant’s Brief at 7-8, 13-14.

                                           -9-
J-A01007-23

limitations implicate our jurisdiction[.]”). On May 17, 2022, this Court issued

a per curiam rule to show cause to Appellant, observing the PCRA petition was

filed while his petition for allowance of appeal was still pending in the

Pennsylvania Supreme Court. See Commonwealth v. Leslie, 757 A.2d 984,

985 (Pa. Super. 2000) (“A PCRA petition may only be filed after an appellant

has waived or exhausted his direct appeal rights.”).

      In his response, Appellant advanced various equity arguments why this

Court should overlook the “de minimis” five-day period between Attorney

Blair’s filing of the PCRA petition and subsequent withdrawal of the petition for

allowance of appeal.     Meanwhile, we note, the PCRA court has opined

Appellant’s judgment of sentence became final when this Court quashed his

direct appeal, PCRA Ct. Op. at 17, and, alternatively, that the PCRA’s one-year

filing deadline began to run when Appellant withdrew his direct appeal. Order,

8/19/20. We conclude the PCRA petition was timely filed on different grounds.

See Commonwealth v. Reed, 107 A.3d 137, 140 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation

omitted) (“This Court may affirm a PCRA court’s decision on any grounds if

the record supports it.”).

      The   PCRA’s   jurisdictional   time     “limitations   are   mandatory   and

interpreted literally; thus, a court has no authority to extend filing periods

except as the statute permits.” Reed, 107 A.3d at 140 (citation omitted).

The PCRA provides that generally, a petition “shall be filed within one year of

the date the judgment becomes final[.]”          42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1).       “[A]

                                      - 10 -
J-A01007-23

judgment becomes final at the conclusion of direct review, including

discretionary review in . . . the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, or at the

expiration of time for seeking the review.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(3) (emphasis

added).

      As stated above, following this Court’s quashal of Appellant’s attempted

direct appeal, the trial court entered an order on June 3, 2020, dismissing the

outstanding post-sentence motion. At that time, Appellant could have taken

a direct appeal but, as stated above, he elected not to. Pursuant to Section

9545(b)(3), we conclude Appellant’s judgment of sentence became final at

the expiration of the 30-day appeal period following the June 3rd denial of his

post-sentence motion — July 3rd. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(3). Appellant

then had one year, or until July 3, 2021, to file a PCRA petition.     See 42

Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1).    We thus conclude the September 23, 2020, PCRA

petition was timely filed, and the PCRA court had jurisdiction to review its

merits. See Hipps, 274 A.3d at 1267.

                  V. Statement of Questions Involved

      Appellant presents seven issues for our review:

      1. The PCRA Court erred when it did not find that the trial court
      erred when it denied [Appellant’s] requests for funds to hire an
      expert witness in fire investigation.

      2. The PCRA court erred by not finding appellate counsel was
      ineffective for failing to perfect the direct appeal.

      3. The PCRA Court erred in finding that counsel was not ineffective
      for failing to obtain a continuance of the trial date as evidence
      supports that trial counsel was unprepared.

                                    - 11 -
J-A01007-23

        4. The PCRA Court erred by finding that trial counsel was not
        ineffective for failing to introduce evidence to refute the
        Commonwealth’s theory for motive as it pertained to [Appellant’s]
        financial status.

        5. The PCRA Court erred by making a determination in its
        December 13, 2021 opinion which inaccurately purports that PCRA
        counsel did not introduce evidence of [Appellant’s] financial status
        which would undermine the Commonwealth’s motive for the
        arson, a finding which is clearly not supported by the record.

        6. The PCRA court erred in finding that trial counsel was not
        ineffective for failing to obtain and introduce pictures of the
        progression of the home renovation, which would have refuted the
        theory set forth by the Commonwealth that the holes were cut
        into the ceiling to intentionally create a chimney effect, thereby
        allowing the fire to spread. . . .

        7. The PCRA Court erred in concluding that counsel was not
        ineffective for failing to rebut the testimony of Detective Beebe.

Appellant’s Brief at 7-8.12

     VI. Standard of Review & Law for Ineffective Assistance Claims

        At this juncture, we note the relevant standard of review:

        In reviewing the grant or denial of PCRA relief, an appellate court
        considers whether the PCRA court’s conclusions are supported by
        the record and free of legal error. . . . A PCRA court passes on
        witness credibility at PCRA hearings, and its credibility
        determinations should be provided great deference by reviewing
        courts. . . .

Commonwealth v. Flor, 259 A.3d 891, 910 (Pa. 2021) (citations & quotation

marks omitted).

____________________________________________

12   We have reordered Appellant’s issues for ease of discussion.

                                          - 12 -
J-A01007-23

       Our Supreme Court has explained:

       To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a
       petitioner must overcome the presumption that counsel is
       effective by establishing all of the following three elements[:] (1)
       the underlying legal claim has arguable merit; (2) counsel had no
       reasonable basis for his or her action or inaction; and (3) the
       petitioner suffered prejudice because of counsel's ineffectiveness.

            With regard to the second, reasonable basis prong, “we do
       not question whether there were other more logical courses of
       action which counsel could have pursued; rather, we must
       examine whether counsel’s decisions had any reasonable basis.”
       We will conclude that counsel's chosen strategy lacked a
       reasonable basis only if Appellant proves that “an alternative not
       chosen offered a potential for success substantially greater than
       the course actually pursued.”

            To establish the third, prejudice prong, the petitioner must
       show that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of
       the proceedings would have been different but for counsel’s
       ineffectiveness.

Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 30 A.3d 1111, 1127-28 (Pa. 2011) (citations

omitted & paragraph breaks added). “A failure to satisfy any of the three

prongs of [the above] test requires rejection of a claim of ineffective

assistance of trial counsel[.]” Id. at 1128 (citation omitted).

          VII. Trial Court’s Denial of Funds for Defense Expert

       In his first issue, Appellant avers the PCRA court erred in denying relief

on his claim that the trial court should have granted his pre-trial request for

funds to retain an expert witness.13 Appellant’s Brief at 14, 16. Appellant

____________________________________________

13 Appellant does not raise a claim that Trial Counsel was ineffective for not
retaining an expert witness.

                                          - 13 -
J-A01007-23

contends that if his proposed expert, John Lentini, had testified at trial, he

could have undermined the opinions of the Commonwealth’s three experts.

Id. at 17-18. Specifically, Lentini would have testified: “the air conditioning

was erroneously ruled out as a cause of the fire[;] much of the logic supporting

the [Commonwealth’s] investigator’s conclusions was faulty[,]” and the plastic

cap, on the gasoline can, was likely consumed during the fire.          Id. at 18.

Appellant concludes his due process rights were violated because “his ability

to defend himself at trial was severely compromised.” Id. at 21. We conclude

this issue is waived.

      To be eligible for PCRA relief, a petitioner must establish his allegations

have not been previously litigated or waived. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(3). “[A]n

issue is waived if the petitioner could have raised it but failed to do so before

trial, at trial, during unitary review, on appeal or in a prior state postconviction

proceeding.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9544(b). Appellant’s present claim is one of trial

court error. He could have raised it on direct appeal, but he elected to forego

his direct appeal rights. Accordingly, the issue is waived for PCRA review.

See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(3).

       VIII. Direct Appeal Counsel’s Alleged Ineffectiveness for

                        Not Perfecting a Direct Appeal

      In his second issue, Appellant avers Attorney Stein was ineffective for

failing to perfect a direct appeal, where Appellant had initially requested him

to do so. See Appellant’s Brief at 40-41. Appellant recounts that Attorney

                                      - 14 -
J-A01007-23

Stein filed a premature notice of appeal, as his post-sentence motion was still

pending. Appellant acknowledges the PCRA court’s reasoning that because he

was in fact provided the opportunity to file a nunc pro tunc direct appeal, this

issue is waived.   Appellant nevertheless contends this conduct by counsel

“illustrate[s] the smorgasbord of poor lawyering to which he was subjected.”

Id. at 40 n.12. We agree this issue is waived.

      As stated above, the trial court held a hearing especially to determine

how Appellant wished to proceed following this Court’s quashal of his direct

appeal. The court advised Appellant it could reinstate his direct appeal rights,

but Appellant, represented by counsel and having been colloquied, asserted

his desire to forego a direct appeal. N.T., 8/17/20, at 4, 7-8. Presently on

appeal, Appellant advances no argument that he misunderstood or that at any

time he informed his counsel that he changed his mind. Furthermore, as the

PCRA court points out — and Appellant does not dispute — no record was

made at the PCRA hearing regarding Attorney Stein’s alleged ineffectiveness.

See PCRA Ct. Op. at 44. Accordingly, this issue is waived. See Pa.R.A.P.

302(a) (“Issues not raised in the trial court are waived and cannot be raised

for the first time on appeal.”). We now turn to Appellant’s multiple allegations

of Trial Counsel’s ineffectiveness.

 IX. Trial Counsel’s Alleged Ineffectiveness for Not Continuing Trial

      Next, Appellant asserts the PCRA court erred in denying relief on his

claim that Trial Counsel was ineffective for not accepting the trial court’s offer

                                      - 15 -
J-A01007-23

of a continuance.        Appellant’s Brief at 23.   By way of background, we

summarize the following: at the August 24, 2018, pre-trial hearing, Deputy

Fire Chief Baer stated he had not been requested to provide, and had not

provided, the entirety of his own files to the Commonwealth or defense. N.T.,

8/24/18, at 26-27. These files, comprised of “thousands” of pages, included

his own “origin and cause report” and State Farm’s “complete investigative

packet.” Id. Trial Counsel argued the Commonwealth should have learned

of these files “through reasonable investigation” and provided them in

discovery. Id. at 29-30.

       The trial court suggested the case could be continued to February 2019,

so that the parties could exchange outstanding discovery, and Appellant could

relitigate any discovery claims, possibly in October 2019. See N.T., 8/24/18,

at 31.      Trial Counsel argued the delay should be chargeable to the

Commonwealth for Pa.R.Crim.P. 60014 purposes, but the Commonwealth

objected.    Id. at 32.     Following a private discussion with Appellant, Trial

Counsel advised the court, “[Appellant] has indicated . . . that he would like

to proceed [to trial] on September 4th.” Id. at 33. After further discussion,

the trial court asked Appellant why he wished to go to trial as scheduled. Id.

at 40. Appellant replied, “I just want to get it out of the way.” Id.

____________________________________________

14 See Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(A)(2)(a) (“Trial . . . shall commence within 365 days
from the date on which the complaint is filed.”).

                                          - 16 -
J-A01007-23

       On appeal, Appellant acknowledges that at that pre-trial hearing, Trial

Counsel discussed this issue with him, but insists “the record does not indicate

what was said.” Appellant’s Brief at 24. Appellant claims Trial Counsel was

ineffective for not agreeing to a continuance, so that he could review the large

amount of information possessed by Deputy Fire Chief Baer. Id. at 27-28.

Appellant recounts this file included an origin and cause report and an

electrical engineering report, both important to the question of whether the

fire was accidental or intentionally set. Id. at 27. We conclude no relief is

due.

       In denying relief, the PCRA court weighed the testimony presented at

the PCRA hearing: Appellant stated that Trial Counsel told him, at the time of

the pre-trial hearing, “[W]e’ll go to trial next week without any real

preparation.” PCRA Ct. Op.at 26, quoting N.T., 8/9/21, at 106. Appellant

further testified, “[I]f Judge Koury was going to offer [a continuance to]

February, we should have taken” it. PCRA Ct. Op. at 26, quoting N.T., 8/9/21,

at 106.    Trial Counsel, however, testified that he spoke extensively with

Appellant about: the importance of hiring an expert; “the pros and cons of . . .

a continuance[;]” Appellant’s financial resources; and Appellant’s desire “to

proceed ‘expeditiously’ and that ‘there was no possible way he could come up

with the funds to hire an expert because he had no income.’” PCRA Ct. Op.

at 27, citing N.T., 8/24/21, at 27, 31. Trial Counsel stated it was Appellant’s

decision, following these discussions, to go to trial as scheduled. PCRA Ct.

                                     - 17 -
J-A01007-23

Op. at 27, citing N.T., 8/24/21, at 32. The court found Trial Counsel credible

and Appellant not credible. See PCRA Ct. Op. at 29, 41.

      Appellant does not dispute this discussion by the PCRA court. The court

weighed the competing testimony and found Trial Counsel credible; Appellant

does not address why this Court should reject this credibility finding. See

Flor, 259 A.3d at 910 (PCRA court’s credibility determinations should be

provided great deference by reviewing courts).      Furthermore, the court’s

finding is supported by the record. On appeal, Appellant ignores his own on-

the-record statement at the pre-trial hearing — that, when asked by the trial

court his reasons for foregoing a proposed continuance, Appellant affirmed he

“want[ed] to get it out of the way.” See N.T., 8/24/18, at 40. Finally, we

emphasize Appellant has not explained what any particular document in

Deputy Chief Baer’s files stated, nor why they would have affected the

outcome of his trial. As Appellant has not established his underlying claim has

arguable merit, nor that he was prejudiced, we agree with the PCRA court that

no relief is due. See Flor, 259 A.3d at 902.

              X. Trial Counsel’s Alleged Ineffectiveness for

       Not Presenting Evidence of Appellant’s Financial Status

      We address together Appellant’s next two issues. First, he alleges the

PCRA court erred in denying relief on his claim that Trial Counsel was

ineffective for not presenting evidence of his financial situation. Appellant’s

Brief at 31. He claims such evidence would have “completely undermine[d]

                                    - 18 -
J-A01007-23

the Commonwealth’s theory of motive[,]” which was that he started the fire

to collect insurance proceeds. Id. at 31-32 (emphasis omitted). Appellant

further claims the evidence would have corroborated his own trial testimony,

that he was not suffering any financial troubles. Id. at 33. Appellant also

points out his financial files were on his computer, which was in the

Commonwealth’s possession. Id. at 33-34.

      Next, Appellant contends the PCRA court erred in finding he has

consistently failed to present any particular evidence of his financial history.

Appellant’s Brief at 28. In support, he claims that at the PCRA hearing, the

parties stipulated to the following: (1) in 2014, his net income as “around”

$200,000; and (2) in 2015, his income was between $100,000 and $200,000.

Id. at 29-30, citing N.T. PCRA, 8/24/21, at 4-8. No relief is due.

      First, we disagree with Appellant’s summation that the parties stipulated

to the amount of his income in 2014 and 2015. In selectively quoting the

PCRA hearing transcript, Appellant omits that what the parties stipulated to

was what Appellant would testify were the amounts of his prior income. See

Appellant’s Brief at 29-30; N.T., 8/24/21, at 6, 8 (trial court asking, “Can we

stipulate that [those 2014 and 2015 amounts] is what [Appellant’s] testimony

would be, based on his bank statements and his recollection[?,]” and the

Commonwealth responding, “I have no way of refuting that, Judge. . . . I

have never seen the bank records[,]” but ultimately agreeing to this

stipulation).

                                     - 19 -
J-A01007-23

      Next, we observe, similarly to our above disposition, that on appeal

Appellant has largely ignored the PCRA court’s extensive discussion.           The

PCRA court found Appellant has “been unable to clearly define his claim,” as

he has yet to establish clearly just what his financial status was. PCRA Ct.

Op. at 30.   The court discussed the following:       “throughout this litigation,

[Appellant] has presented conflicting, confusing, and contradictory testimony

regarding . . . his financial status.” Id. at 29. Prior to trial, Appellant did not

provide any documentation of his income or finances to Trial Counsel — only

proof of debts and obligations — and to date, he still has not presented any

tax returns, bank statements, or documents from eBay which would support

his claim that he sold items for profit. Id. at 31-32, 34.

      Furthermore, the PCRA court considered that at trial, Appellant was

given the opportunity on cross-examination to discuss his employment

through “amusement rides inspections, expert witness work and buying and

selling all sorts of surplus[,]” and resultant income in 2014, 2015, and 2016.

PCRA Ct. Op. at 36, citing N.T. Trial Vol. II, 9/5/18, at 180-82. However,

Appellant gave “generalities and double talk about his financial status, without

any detail [or] numbers[,]” and instead “remained steadfast to his strategy to

obfuscate the status of his financial condition and his personal estate.” PCRA

Ct. Op. at 36-37.

      Additionally, the PCRA court found Trial Counsel had a reasonable basis

for various trial strategies. See Chmiel, 30 A.3d at 1127-28. For example,

                                      - 20 -
J-A01007-23

while Appellant continues to refer to financial documents on his computer,

seized by the law enforcement, Trial Counsel explained that Appellant had

informed him those records would have exposed Appellant to other crimes.

Id. at 33-34, citing N.T., 8/24/21, at 51-52. Due to this concern, Trial Counsel

elected not to pursue recovery of the financial records from Appellant’s

computer. Additionally, Appellant had indicated his desire to testify about his

pre-fire “purchases of ‘high quality’ appliances and [a] several thousand[s]

dollars[-]playground for his son,” which would ostensibly establish Appellant’s

“access to funds and having lots of money.” PCRA Ct. Op. at 33, citing N.T.,

8/24/21, at 17. However, Trial Counsel believed this “testimony would have

been easily negated by” evidence that Appellant incurred a $25,000 tax lien

in 2014 by the IRS. PCRA Ct. Op. at 33. The PCRA court found Trial Counsel’s

testimony was credible and his trial “strategy appeared both reasonable and

professional, given the hand he was dealt.” Id. at 37.

      Again, Appellant does not address any of this detailed discussion by the

PCRA court, aside from inaccurately claiming the parties stipulated to the

amount of his income in 2014 and 2015. Additionally, even if the PCRA court

had accepted Appellant’s income figures as credible, the broad range of a

$100,000 to $200,000 income, given for 2015, supports the court’s finding

that Appellant has consistently given “generalities and double talk about his

financial status[.]” See N.T., 8/24/21, at 5; PCRA Ct. Op. at 37. Finally,

Appellant does not explain why his entire financial situation should be

                                     - 21 -
J-A01007-23

determined solely on the basis of income. We defer to the credibility findings

of the PCRA court, and we agree with its conclusions. See Flor, 259 A.3d at

910. Accordingly, no relief is due.

             XI. Trial Counsel’s Alleged Ineffectiveness for

          Not Presenting Pre-Fire Photos of House Renovations

      Next, Appellant argues the PCRA court erred in denying relief on his

claim that Trial Counsel was ineffective for not introducing photos showing the

state of the house before and during renovations.      Appellant claims these

photos would have supported his claim that the holes in the second and third

floor ceilings were cut, more than one year before the fire, in order to remove

piping.   Appellant’s Brief at 35-36.      The photos would have thus also

controverted the Commonwealth’s theory that Appellant made the holes to

accelerate a fire, with the hope that after the fire, the holes would not be

visible or recognizable. Id. at 36-37. Appellant argues that in finding the

photos would have been merely cumulative pursuant to Commonwealth v.

Small, 189 A.3d 961 (Pa. Super. 2018), the PCRA court applied the wrong

legal standard. Id. at 37. Appellant maintains the issue in Small was after-

discovered evidence, whereas here, he was not arguing new evidence was

uncovered post-trial, but rather that Trial Counsel was ineffective to present

already-existing evidence. Id. We determine no relief is due.

      The PCRA court set forth several reasons for denying relief. First, it

considered that Appellant presented undated photos at the PCRA hearing, but

                                      - 22 -
J-A01007-23

testified they were taken in June or July of 2014, approximately one year

before the May 2015 fire. PCRA Ct. Op. at 38, citing N.T., 8/24/21, at 79.

“[M]any of the photos depict plaster on the walls, artwork hanging on one

wall[, while] other pictures seemingly depict rooms . . . in a dated or rundown

condition, but do not seem to be gutted or otherwise disassembled.” PCRA

Ct. Op. at 38-39. As Appellant’s own trial testimony was that he performed

“significant renovations in 2015,” the court credited the Commonwealth’s

argument that the PCRA hearing photographs were not relevant, because they

did not depict the condition of the home at the time of the fire. Id. at 40.

Instead, the court found, the photographs presented by the Commonwealth

at trial, taken immediately after the fire, “depicted the extensive renovations

undertaken by” Appellant. Id. Finally, the court found the photographs would

have been merely cumulative of Appellant’s trial testimony as to why the holes

were cut. Id. at 39. We agree.

      In Flor — a case that did not involve a claim of after-discovered

evidence, our Supreme Court “decline[d] to deem counsel ineffective for not

electing to call his own witness to establish an undisputed fact of which the

jury was already informed by a number of witnesses.” Flor, 259 A.3d at 925.

We thus determine the PCRA court’s denial of relief, on the ground any

photographs would be merely cumulative of Appellant’s trial testimony, was

reasonable.   See id.   Additionally, Appellant does not address the court’s

reasoning, that his photographs, purportedly taken one year before the fire,

                                    - 23 -
J-A01007-23

would not show the state of renovations at the time of the fire. Accordingly,

Appellant has not established he was prejudiced, and no relief is due. See

Flor, 259 A.3d at 902.

             XII. Trial Counsel’s Alleged Ineffectiveness for

             Not Rebutting the Testimony of Detective Beebe

      In his final issue, Appellant avers the PCRA court erred in rejecting his

claim that Trial Counsel was ineffective for not rebutting testimony by

Bethlehem Police Detective Christopher Beebe, which “was impermissible for

a lay witness.” Appellant’s Brief at 39. Specifically, Appellant cites Detective

Beebe’s testimony that: (1) the gas can would have expanded if the cap were

on during the fire; (2) the alarm system would have tripped if there were a

power surge or other electrical problem; (3) “he did not see kinks, melting or

burning in wire or cord box [sic]” and thus the fire was likely not caused by

an electrical issue; and (4) Appellant was agitated and had asked the detective

why he “was trying to accuse him of setting his house on fire[.]” Id. at 39.

Appellant complains that Trial Counsel failed to remedy or explain any of these

statements during his — Appellant’s — own testimony.            Id.   Appellant

concedes     that   Detective   Beebe’s   testimony,   when   “[c]onsidered   in

isolation . . . may appear harmless[,]” but points out the PCRA court itself

“seemingly     concedes     that   counsel’s   stewardship    was     somewhat

problematic[.]” Id. at 40. Nevertheless, Appellant concludes the PCRA court

erred in concluding he was not harmed by this testimony. Id. We disagree.

                                     - 24 -
J-A01007-23

      The PCRA court found Detective Beebe’s testimony was merely

cumulative of, and consistent with, the opinions and findings of the

Commonwealth’s three experts. PCRA Ct. Op. at 43. The court thus reasoned

that Appellant was not prejudiced. Pursuant to Flor, we agree. See Chmiel,

30 A.3d at 1127-28; Flor, 259 A.3d at 925.

      Furthermore, Appellant ignores additional reasoning by the PCRA court.

First, the court observed this ineffectiveness claim “apparently arises from, or

is primarily based upon, the criticisms of Detective Beebe contained in Mr.

Lentini’s report.” See PCRA Ct. Op. at 43. However, Lentini’s report was not

created until the PCRA proceedings, and thus not available to Trial Counsel at

the time of trial. Id. Additionally, the PCRA court found Beebe’s observations

were “at best . . . tangential” to the issues of the origin of the fire and whether

the fire was intentionally set.    Id. at 44.   Appellant does not present any

argument why these findings are in error. See Flor, 259 A.3d at 910. We

conclude no relief is due.

                                XIII. Conclusion

      In sum, we conclude Appellant’s first two issues are waived, and that

the PCRA court properly denied relief on his multiple claims of Trial Counsel’s

ineffective assistance.      We therefore affirm the order denying his PCRA

petition.

      Order affirmed.

                                      - 25 -
J-A01007-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 1/24/2023

                          - 26 -