Com. v. Caldwell, C.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: November 20, 2025
• Docket: 1595 WDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S36014-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : CAMERIN CALDWELL : : Appellant : No. 1595 WDA 2024

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered December 9, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0009797-2019

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., NICHOLS, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.E.: FILED: November 20, 2025

Camerin Caldwell appeals pro se from the order entered on December

9, 2024, dismissing his petition filed pursuant to the Post-Conviction Relief Act

(“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. Caldwell argues the PCRA court erred

in dismissing his petition without a hearing and finding his counsel did not

render ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm.

After being initially charged with first-degree murder and related

charges, Caldwell pled guilty to reduced charges upon the following facts as

set forth by the Commonwealth during the guilty plea hearing:

Had the Commonwealth proceeded to trial in this matter, the Commonwealth would have called detectives and officers from the Pittsburgh Police Department as well as civilian witnesses and medical professionals who would have testified to the following.

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S36014-25

On or about Thursday, July 4th of 2019, at approximately 11:03 p.m., Zone 2 officers were dispatched to a shots-fired call in the 700 block of Penn Avenue in downtown Pittsburgh. Multiple officers responded to the area as there were thousands of people in downtown Pittsburgh that night at that time celebrating the Fourth of July and watching the fireworks display.

On arrival, officers found two males shot inside the open area known as the Agnes Katz Plaza located on Penn Avenue in downtown Pittsburgh. Kenneth Green, an 18-year-old male, was found shot approximately six times in his upper and lower body. Keyari[] Wynn, [] a 16-year-old male, was found with one gunshot to the head. Both victims were rushed to the hospital from the scene.

The scene was processed by Pittsburgh Police crime scene unit and detectives. Among the evidence collected included eight 9- millimeter shell casings recovered from the scene. Additionally, a firearm, a 9-millimeter Taurus pistol, Model G2C, with Serial Number TMC81749 was recovered from a dumpster in the northwest corner of the plaza. The weapon was not loaded and the magazine was empty when recovered.

In addition, detectives from the Mobile Crime Unit would testify that multiple surveillance videos were obtained from near the crime scene and surrounding area. Through the course of the investigation into the incident detectives learned, and they would testify along with the thousands of civilians downtown on the Fourth of July to celebrate, video surveillance captured two groups of actors in a physical altercation inside of Point State Park near the end of the fireworks display. The surveillance videos show that the group separated at some point and walked separately into the city before ultimately meeting back up with each other at the Agnes Katz Plaza where the shooting occurred at approximately 11:00 p.m.

Video surveillance would show that when the two groups came together in the plaza, a verbal altercation begins among several individuals. Some begin to physically fight each other. At approximately 11:02, a male wearing a white tank top and jean shorts is observed having a gun out in his hand and begins firing. This individual was identified as the defendant, Camerin Caldwell, from the video evidence by his stepfather, Antonio Wynn, and his mother, Rayshonna Caldwell[].

-2- J-S36014-25

Once the defendant begins firing the gun, Keyari Wynn, the defendant’s stepbrother, is observed to fall to the ground, and Kenneth Green is seen attempting to run prior to collapsing where police find him on their arrival. The defendant is then observed to run from the plaza past the dumpster with a firearm visible in his hand and is seen throwing the firearm into the dumpster where it was later recovered. At no time does the defendant stop to render aid.

Scientist Thomas Morgan from the Allegheny County Office of the Medical Examiner would testify that he performs an examination on the ballistics evidence in this case and documented same at report number 19 LAB 05264. Scientist Morgan would testify that he examined the 9-millimeter Taurus pistol recovered on scene from the dumpster. He would testify that the firearm was test- fired and found to be operable and to have a barrel length of less than 15 inches. He would also testify that he examined the eight spent 9-millimeter cartridge casings recovered on scene, and he would confirm that his examination revealed that all eight casings were discharged from the Taurus firearm he examined. The evidence would show that this firearm recovered and used in this instance was registered to a stepbrother of the defendant, Keanu Wynn [].

Victim Kenneth Green, who was shot multiple times in the upper and lower extremities and body, would testify that it was the defendant, Camerin Caldwell, who shot him that day. Kenneth Green would testify that the two groups of males that day fighting belonged to two different gangs, AFN and Choppa Boys. Green would explain that these are rival gangs that were releasing YouTube message videos against each other at the time. They had originally fought in Point State Park earlier that night, but each had gone their separate ways until they ran into each other again at Katz Plaza. Green would testify that he knows the defendant Caldwell because they used to be friends and hung out in ninth grade together. They eventually grew apart as they began to hang out with different people.

On the night in question, Caldwell and Green got into a fistfight. Green lost track of Caldwell and was standing there watching the others engaged and then saw Camerin Caldwell with a gun in his hand and saw Caldwell start firing.

-3- J-S36014-25

The Commonwealth would have presented evidence at trial that the defendant was 18 years old at the time of this incident and did not have a valid license to carry a concealed weapon. Additionally, the defendant was a person prohibited from possessing a firearm as a result of an F1 robbery conviction at Juvenile Case Number 201702191 with a disposition date of 4/19/19.

Through the course of the trial, the Commonwealth would have presented medical records to support the charges. The medical records would have established that Kenneth Green suffered six bullet wounds to his body. He required multiple surgeries and still has at least one bullet lodged in his stomach. He suffered severe damage to his colon and kidneys which require ongoing treatment and his injuries resulted in the amputation of his left leg above the knee.

The medical records from Keyari Wynn would show that he suffered a debilitating gunshot wound to his head on July 4th, 2019. As a result of his injuries, Kyari was left with permanent brain damage requiring constant care. He remained nonverbal and required a ventilator and feeding tube until he eventually succumbed to his injuries related to this incident and died on or about May 14th, 2021.

Dr. Todd Luckasevic, medical examiner at the Allegheny County Office of the Medical Examiner, would testify that he performed an autopsy on Keyari Wynn at Case Number 21 COR 04220. He would testify that his autopsy showed that as a result of the gunshot wound to the head from the July 4th, 2019 incident, the bullet lacerated the skin, subcutaneous tissue and muscle of the scalp, fractured the skill and lacerated the brain. His opinion would be that Keyari Wynn died as a result of complications from a penetrating gunshot wound to the head and that his manner of death was homicide, and with that, the Commonwealth would rest, Your Honor.

N.T. Guilty Plea Hearing, 3/10/22, at 10-16.

The PCRA court set forth the relevant procedural history:

[Caldwell] pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, on March 10, 2022 to the following charges: third degree murder, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(c); aggravated assault—serious bodily injury, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(1)[;] firearms not to be carried without a

-4- J-S36014-25

license, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6106(a)(1); and possession of a firearm prohibited, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105(a)(1). On June 23, 2022, [Caldwell] was sentenced to serve a period of incarceration of not less than one hundred and eighty six (186) months nor more than three hundred and seventy two (372) months, followed by a consecutive period of incarceration of not less than seventy-eight (78) nor more than one hundred and fifty-six (156) months, for a total aggregate sentence of twenty-two (22) years to forty-four (44) years [of] imprisonment. The court noted that [Caldwell] is not RRRI eligible.

No post-sentence motions or direct appeal were filed.

On June 5, 2023, [Caldwell] filed a pro se petition under the [PCRA]. Counsel was appointed to represent [Caldwell]. On October 10, 2023, after a thorough review of the pleadings and transcripts, along with legal research of possible issues and correspondence with [Caldwell], counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a “no merit” letter [pursuant to Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc)]. On November 13, 2023, the court granted the motion to withdraw and issued a notice of intent to dismiss, which provided [Caldwell] with twenty (20) days to respond. As no response was forthcoming, the petition was dismissed via order dated December 21, 2023, which was served on [Caldwell] by certified mail.

On January 26, 2024, [Caldwell] filed a notice of appeal. In a pro se “Application for Relief,” [Caldwell] claimed he did not receive a copy of the notice of intent to dismiss. This resulted in the Superior Court issuing an order on August 2, 2024 vacating the order dismissing the PCRA petition and remanding the matter to [the PCRA court] with a direction to serve [Caldwell] with the notice of intention to dismiss.

Pursuant to said order from the Superior Court, the [PCRA court] issued an order on August 15, 2024 attaching a copy of the November 13, 2023 notice of intention to dismiss and a copy of the court’s 1925(a) opinion, with a provision allowing [Caldwell] to file a response within twenty (20) days. After reviewing [Caldwell’s] response, the court issued an order on December 9, 2024 again dismissing [Caldwell’s] PCRA petition, which was served on him by certified mail.

-5- J-S36014-25

On December 30, 2024, [Caldwell] filed a pro se notice of appeal.

PCRA Court Opinion, 1/9/25, at 1-2 (unnecessary capitalization and italics

omitted).

The PCRA court did not order Caldwell to file a Rule 1925(b) statement

after he filed the December 30, 2024 notice of appeal.1 See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).

The PCRA court authored a Rule 1925(a) opinion on January 9, 2025,

providing brief explanations in support of its ruling and incorporating its prior

Rule 1925(a) opinion dated May 1, 2024. See PCRA Court Opinion, 1/9/25, at

2-3; Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).

Caldwell’s brief does not conform to our Rules. He does not include the

order or other determination in question, a statement of questions involved,

statement of the case, or summary of the argument. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a).

Caldwell includes a section labeled “Proffered Factual Argument” that seems

to include both a case statement and his argument on appeal. See Appellant’s

Brief, Proffered Factual Argument, at 1-6 (pagination provided).

We are cognizant that Appellant is pro se, however, this Court will not act as counsel and will not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant. It is an appellant’s duty to present arguments that are sufficiently developed for our review. The brief must support the claims with pertinent discussion, with references to the record and with citations to legal authorities. As such, when issues are not properly raised and developed in briefs, when the briefs are wholly inadequate to present specific issues for review, a court will not consider the merits thereof. Although this Court is willing to construe liberally materials filed by a pro se litigant, a pro se ____________________________________________

1 The PCRA court did order Caldwell to file a Rule 1925(b) statement after the

January 26, 2024 notice of appeal and Caldwell complied with that order.

-6- J-S36014-25

appellant enjoys no special benefit. Any layperson choosing to represent himself in a legal proceeding must, to some reasonable extent, assume the risk that his lack of expertise and legal training will prove his undoing.

Commonwealth v. Westlake, 295 A.3d 1281, 1286 n.8 (Pa. Super. 2023)

(brackets, quotation marks, italics, and citations omitted).

Here, because we are able to decipher two claims from Caldwell’s

deficient brief, we will not quash the appeal. Any other potential issues we

deem waived as they are not properly developed. See id. The two reviewable

arguments are: (1) the denial of an evidentiary hearing; and (2) ineffective

assistance of counsel in connection with his guilty plea.

We will address Caldwell’s second issue first as that will determine

whether his first issue has merit. Caldwell asserts “counsel was in fact

ineffective, and that the sole reason that [Caldwell] entered into any deal was

based on what his counsel told him, what the prosecutor offered in exchange

for his plea.” Appellant’s Brief, Proffered Factual Argument, at 2 (pagination

provided). Caldwell does not explain what his counsel told him or what he

believes the prosecutor offered for his plea of guilty. Caldwell seems to believe

there was more to his plea agreement than a reduction of charges. See id.

Caldwell argues an evidentiary hearing was necessary “to determine what was

actually part of the bargain to [Caldwell] by his counsel.” Id. at 5 (pagination

provided).

After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the

applicable law, and the thorough opinion filed by the Honorable Susan

-7- J-S36014-25

Evashavik DiLucente dated May 1, 2024, we conclude the PCRA court did not

err in finding Caldwell’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel meritless.

See PCRA Court Opinion, 5/1/24, at 11-15 (noting Caldwell is bound by the

statements he made at his guilty plea hearing and he cannot challenge his

plea by asserting he lied under oath, Caldwell acknowledged at the hearing

that there was no agreement as to the sentence to be imposed and nothing

else was promised him in exchange for his plea of guilty, and finding Caldwell’s

plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered).

In his final claim, Caldwell asserts the PCRA court should have held an

evidentiary hearing so he “could present factual proof[.]” Appellant’s Brief,

Proffered Factual Argument, at 2 (pagination provided). This claim has no

merit.

“A PCRA hearing is not a matter of right, and the PCRA court may decline

to hold a hearing if there is no genuine issue concerning any material fact and

the defendant is not entitled to relief as a matter of law.” Commonwealth v.

Morrison, 878 A.2d 102, 109 (Pa. Super. 2005) (en banc) (citation omitted).

“We stress that an evidentiary hearing is not meant to function as a fishing

expedition for any possible evidence that may support some speculative claim

of ineffectiveness.” Commonwealth v. Roney, 79 A.3d 595, 605 (Pa. 2013)

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

As the PCRA court aptly found, there is no genuine issue concerning any

material fact and Caldwell is not entitled to relief as a matter of law. His only

-8- J-S36014-25

claim for relief would contradict the statements he made at his guilty plea

hearing. “Appellant is bound by his statements made during the colloquy.”

Commonwealth v. Reid, 117 A.3d 777, 783 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation

omitted). The only agreement between Caldwell and the Commonwealth was

a reduction in the charges against him. The Commonwealth amended the

charge of first-degree murder to third-degree murder, withdrew counts 2, 3,

7, and 8, and amended one count of aggravated assault from aggravated

assault with a deadly weapon to aggravated assault causing serious bodily

injury. See N.T. Guilty Plea Hearing, 3/10/22, at 2-3. Caldwell cannot now

claim he lied under oath in an attempt to withdraw his knowing, voluntary,

and intelligent guilty plea.

Finding no error in the PCRA court’s order, we affirm.

Order affirmed.

11/20/2025

-9- Circulated 10/29/2025 Circulated 10/29/2025 02:08 02:08 PM PM

IN N THE COURT COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF OF COMMON OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA

COMMONWEALTH COMMONWEALTH OF OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA DIVISION CRIMINAL DIVISION

vs. VS. CP-02-CR-0009797-2019 CP-02-CR-0009797-2019

[Pa. Super. [Pa. Super. Ct. Ct. # 184 WDA 2024] 2024] CAMERIN CALDWELL, CALDWELL,

Defendant Defendant

OPINION AND ORDER ORDER TO TO TRANSMIT TRANSMIT RECORD TO TO APPELLATE COURT COURT

The Court Court submits submits this Opinion and Order Order to to Transmit Transmit Record to to Appellate Appellate

Court Court in n response to to Defendant Defendant Camerin Caldwell's appeal appeal pending in n the the

Pennsylvania Superior Superior Court Court at at docket docket number number 184 WDA 184 WDA 2024. 2024. For For the reasons the reasons

that that follow, follow, the the December December 21, 2023, 2023, Order Order of of Court Court denying Mr. Mr. Caldwell's Caldwell's "

i .- r.2

•

:· l

22 > -" request request for for relief pursuant pursuant to to the the Post-Conviction Relief Relief Act Act ("PCRA") ("PCRA") should^be should'be

affirmed. affirmed. ^&22 S ·7 233 -.. 77 CJ o I.I. Procedural Procedural Background 3 ) c

The Commonwealth Commonwealth charged Mr. Mr. Caldwell Caldwell by criminal criminal information nformation with with

eight eight counts counts of of criminal criminal conduct. conduct. Mr. Mr. Caldwell Caldwell appeared before this Court Court to to

enter enter a negotiated guilty plea plea agreement agreement to: to: Count Count 1 (which, (which, as as amended, amended,

was was for for third third degree degree murder murder for for the death death of of Keyari Keyari Wynn) Wynn) - 18 8 Pa. Pa. C.S. C.S. §

2502(c), 2502(c), Count Count 4 (which, (which, as as amended, amended, was was for for aggravated assault assault -- serious

bodily bodily injury) injury) - 18 18 Pa. Pa. C.S. C.S. § 2702(a)(1), 2702(a)(l ), Count Count 5 (carrying (carrying aa firearm firearm without without a

license) license) --- 18 18 Pa. Pa. C.S. C.S. § 6106(a)(1), 6106(a)(l ), and Count Count 6 (persons (persons not not to to posses posses a firearm) firearm)

- 18 Pa. C.S. 18Pa. 55 6105(a)(1) C.S. §§ 6105(0)(1) & & (c)(7). (c)(7). Counts Counts 2, 2, 3, 3, 7, 7, and 8 of of the criminal criminal information were withdrawn by the information pursuant to the Commonwealth pursuant to the the parties' parties’

plea plea agreement. agreement.

Prior to entering his negotiated to entering negotiated guilty guilty plea, Mr. Caldwell plea, Mr. Caldwell completed a

document document titled titled “Guilty "Guilty Plea Plea Explanation Explanation Of Of Defendant's Rights." Therein, Therein, Mr. Mr.

Caldwell Caldwell affirmatively affirmatively answered and acknowledged that that he understood that

because he was was charged with more than one criminal criminal offense, offense, "the "the Court Court may may

impose a separate, separate, or or consecutive, consecutive, sentence sentence for for each offensef.]" offense[.]" See Guilty Guilty

Plea Plea Explanation Of Of Defendant's Defendant's Rights Rights at at 2, 2, Question 5. 5. He also also answered and

acknowledged that that he had not not been promised, promised, even by his attorney, attorney, "anything "anything

in in exchange for for [his] [his] guilty plea plea other other than the the terms terms of of [the] [the] plea plea bargain." Id. bargain." Id,

at at 9, 9, Question 56. 56. In n addition, addition, during during the the guilty plea plea proceedings, proceedings, the the following following

occurred: occurred:

THE COURT: COURT: Did Did you complete a Guilty Plea/Explanation of of Defendant's Defendant's Rights Rights form?

[MR. [MR. CALDWELL]: CALDWELL]: Yes. Yes.

THE COURT: COURT: Did you complete this form form with the advice and assistance assistance of of [your [your attorney]?

[MR. [MR. CALDWELL]: CALDWELL]: Yes, Yes, ma'am. ma'am.

THE COURT: COURT: And was was he available to to answer answer any questions questions you had while while you were completing this form?

[MR. [MR. CALDWELL]: CALDWELL): Yes, Yes, ma'am. ma'am.

THE THE COURT: COURT: Did you you initial initial this this form form at at the the bottom bottom of of each each page? page? 22 [MR, [MR. CALDWELL]: CALDWELL]: Yes, Yes, ma'am. ma'am.

THE COURT: COURT: Did you also Did also sign sign the the form form at the the end?

[MR. CALDWELL]: [MR. CALDWELL]: Yes, Yes, ma’am. ma'am.

THE COURT: COURT: And in n initialing initialing at the the bottom bottom ofof each page and signing the form at signing the form at the the end, did you verify and affirm end, did affirm that you had read read and understood understood each and every question?

[MR. CALDWELL]: [MR. CALDWELL]: Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am.

THE COURT: COURT: Also, that Also, that you answered answered each and every question question truthfully truthfully and honestly?

[MR. CALDWELL]: [MR. CALDWELL]: Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am.

THE COURT: COURT: Iss this your your signature, signature, sir? sir?

[MR. CALDWELL]: Yes, [MR. CALDWELL]: Yes, ma'am. ma'am.

THE COURT: COURT: Did you sign Did sign this today?

[MR. CALDWELL]: [MR. Yes, ma’am. CALDWELL]: Yes, ma'am.

THE COURT: COURT: All right. All right. I will will incorporate ncorporate this form form and your your answers answers into into these these proceedings. proceedings .... ...

See Guilty Plea Transcript ("PT") Plea Transcript ("PT") at 6-7 6-7..

Prior to to entering entering his guilty guilty plea, plea, Mr. Mr. Caldwell Caldwell heard the the Commonwealth

state state that that the the parties had “no "no agreement agreement as to to sentence" sentence" and that that the the

Commonwealth was Commonwealth was seeking seeking a deadly weapon sentencing sentencing enhancement. enhancement. See

id. d, at at 3. 3. Mr. Mr. Caldwell Caldwell acknowledged acknowledged the the foregoing. Id. at foregoing. ld, at 5. 5.

33 Finally, Finally, prior to to entering entering his guilty guilty plea, plea, the the Court Court and Mr. Mr. Caldwell Caldwell had the the

following following exchange: exchange:

THE COURT: COURT: ... Mr. Mr. Caldwell, Caldwell, you've been charged at at CC 9797 of of 201 20199 with one count count ofof criminal criminal homicide in in the third third degree, degree, the victim victim being Keyari Keyari Wynn Wynn .... That That is a felony ofof the first degree and carries carries as as a potential potential sentence a period of period of ncarceration in carceration of of up to to 20 to 40 years. years.

You've been been charged with one one count count ofof aggravated assault,assault, attempt attempt to to cause cause serious serious bodily bodily injury, injury, and that victim is Kenneth and that victim is Kenneth Green. Green. That That isis aa felony felony of of the the first first degree andand the the potential potential penalty penalty atat that that count count isi aa period period ofof incarceration of up to 10 incarceration of up to 1 O to to 20 20 years. years.

You've You've been been charged charged withwith one one count count ofof carrying carrying aa firearm firearm without without aa license, license, which which isi aa felony felony ofof the the third third degree. The potential penalty at degree. The potential penalty at that that count count isi aa period period of of incarceration incarceration of of three three and and aa half half to to seven years. seven years.

Finally, Finally, you’ve you've been been charged charged with with one count of persons not to possess one count of persons not to possess aa firearm, firearm, which which isis aa misdemeanor misdemeanor of of the the first first degree. degree. TheThe potential potential penalty at that count isis two penalty at that count two and and half half to to five five years. years.

So So your your total total potential potential penalty penalty on on all all of of these these counts, counts, ifif they they were were imposed, imposed, thethe penalties penalties consecutively would consecutively would be be aa period period of of incarceration incarceration of of upup to to 36 36 to to 72 72 years. years.

44 Did you discuss these Did these charges charges with attorney]? [your attorney]?

[MR. CALDWELL]: [MR. Yes. CALDWELL]: Yes.

THE COURT: COURT: Are you fully fully and completely aware understand the and understand the nature nature and elements of each charge? elements charge?

[MR. CALDWELL]: [MR. Yes, ma'am. CALDWELL]: Yes, ma'am. THEE COU TH RT: COURT: Do you fully fully and and completely completely understand the minimum understand the minimum andand maximum penalties that maximum penalties that you’re you're facing today? facing today?

[MR. CALDWELL]: [MR. Yes. ma’am. CALDWELL]: Yes, ma'am.

Id. d at 8-9 (emphasis (emphasis added). added).

This Court Court ultimately ultimately accepted Mr. Mr. Caldwell's negotiated negotiated plea plea

agreement. Id. at agreement. kl at 20. Sentencing was 20. Sentencing was deferred deferred pending pending the the preparation of a

presentence report. report. Id. at 21..

On June June 23, 23, 2022, 2022, Mr. Mr. Caldwell Caldwell appeared before this Court Court for sentencing. sentencing.

The The Court Court sentenced Mr. Mr. Caldwell Caldwell to to the the following, following, among among other other things: things: at

Count Count 1, 1, 15.5 15.5 to to 31 years' years' imprisonment, mprisonment, at Count 4, 6.5 Count 4, 6.5 years years to to 13 years' 13 years'

incarceration, ncarceration, at Count 5, two to Count 5, to four four years' years' imprisonment, mprisonment, and at at Count Count 6, no

further penalty. The sentence penalty. The sentence imposed at Count mposed at Count 4 was was ordered ordered to to run run

consecutively to to that that imposed mposed at at Count Count 1,, and the the incarceration ncarceration ordered ordered at

Count 5 was Count was directed directed to to be served served concurrently with with the the sentence sentence imposed mposed at at

Count 1.. Accordingly, Count Accordingly, Mr. Mr. Caldwell's aggregate aggregate period period of of incarceration ncarceration was was 22

to 44 to years. 44 years.

55 Mr. Mr. Caldwell Caldwell did not file did not file a post-sentence post-sentence motion or an appeal from his appeal from

judgment judgment of of sentence. sentence. However, However, on June 5, 2023, 2023, Mr. Caldwell filed Mr. Caldwell filed a prose se

motion seeking seeking PCRA PCRA relief. relief. Therein, Therein, he alleged alleged the the following: following:

Trial Trial counsel counsel waswas ineffective, ineffective, because he didn't provide provide me with with the the necessary information nformation to to make the the decision whether whether to to enter enter a guilty plea or guilty plea or not. not. Which violates mymy 6 th amendment amendment right to counsel. Trial to counsel. Trial counsel counsel waswas ineffective neffective for misinforming misinforming me me that that I would receive receive a sentence term term of of 10 10 to to 20 years years in n exchange for my my guilty plea plea to to third third degree murder. murder. In n violation violation ofof my my 6th amendment amendment right to to counsel. counsel. TrialTrial counsel counsel waswas ineffective ineffective for for failing failing to to object object toto the the defective guilty pleaplea colloquy that did not nform me that did not in form me of of the the possibility possibility that that my my sentencing term could be term could imposed m consecutively. consecutively. In n violation violation of my 6th of my amendment amendment right to to counsel. counsel.

See June 5, 5, 2023, 2023, PCRA Petition Petition at at 4. 4.

This Court Court appointed counsel counsel to to represent represent Mr. Mr. Caldwell Caldwell during during his PCRA PCRA

proceedings. proceedings. PCRA counsel counsel ultimately filed filed a motion to to withdraw withdraw as as counsel counsel

and no-merit no-merit letter etter pursuant pursuant to to Commonwealth Commonwealth v. v. Turner Turner and Commonwealth Commonwealth v, v.

Finley Finley. This Court Court granted PCRA counsel counsel leave eave to to withdraw withdraw and provided Mr. Mr.

Caldwell Caldwell with a notice of of intent intent to to dismiss dismiss his pro se PCRA petition because the

claims claims raised raised therein lacked acked merit, merit, among among other other things. things.

By By order order entered December December 21 21,,2023 (the (the “Order"), "Order"), this Court Court dismissed dismissed

Mr. Mr. Caldwell's Caldwell's pro se PCRA prose PCRA petition. petition. Mr. Mr. Caldwell Caldwell submitted a notice notice of of appeal appeal

dated dated January January 12, 12, 2024. 2024. At At this Court's Court's direction, direction, Mr. Mr. Caldwell Caldwell filed filed a Pa.R.A.P. Pa.R.A.P.

1925(b) 1925(b) statement statement by by document document dated February 7,, 2024. 2024.

66 II. Factual Background Factual

The Commonwealth The Commonwealth provided provided the the tollowing following factual factual summary during during Mr. Mr.

Caldwell's guilty guilty plea plea proceedings: proceedings:

Had the Had the Commonwealth proceeded proceeded to to trial trial in in this this matter, the matter, the Commonwealth Commonwealth would would have called have called detectives and officers from from the the Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Police Police Department Department as well well as civilian witnesses as civilian witnesses and and medical medical professionals would have professionals who would have testified testified to to the the following. following.

On or or about about Thursday, July 4th Thursday, July 4th of of 2019, 2019, at at approximately 1 approximately l1 l :03 :03 p.m., p.m., Zone Zone 22 officers officers were dispatched dispatched to to a a shots-fired shots-fired call call in in the the 700 700 block block of of Penn Penn Avenue in Avenue in downtown Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh. Multiple Multiple officers responded to responded to the the area area asas there there were were thousands thousands of of people people inn downtown Pittsburgh Pittsburgh thatthat night night at at the the time time celebrating the celebrating the Fourth of of July July and watching watching thethe fireworks display. fireworks display.

On arrival, arrival, officers found found two males males shot shot inside inside the the open area known as open area as the the Agnes Agnes Katz Katz Plaza Plaza located ocated on on Penn Penn Avenue A venue in in downtown downtown Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh. Kenneth Kenneth Green, Green, an 18-year-old 18-year-old male, male, was was found found shot shot approximately six six times in times in his upper upper and lower ower body. body. [Keyari [Keyari Wynn], Wynn], a16-16- year-old year-old male, male, was was found found with with one gunshot gunshot toto the the head. Both head. Both victims were were rushed rushed toto the the hospital hospital from from the the scene. scene.

The scene was The was processed processed by Pittsburgh Police crime Pittsburgh Police crime scene unit and detectives. detectives. Among the the evidence evidence collected included collected included eight eight 9-millimeter shell shell casings casings recovered from recovered from the scene. Additionally, the scene. Additionally, a firearm, firearm, a 9- millimeter pistol, Model millimeter Taurus pistol, Model G2C, G2C, with Serial Serial Number Number TMC81 749 was TMC81749 was recovered recovered from from a dumpster dumpster in in the the northwest corner northwest corner of of the the plaza. plaza. The The weapon was was not not loaded oaded and the the magazine was was empty when recovered. recovered.

In In addition, addition, detectives detectives from the Mobile from the Mobile Crime Crime Unit Unit would testify would testify that that multiple surveillance videos were multiple surveillance obtained from near the crime scene and surrounding obtained from near the crime surrounding area. area. Through Through the course of the the course investigation into the investigation into the the 77 incident ncident detectives detectives learned, earned, and they would would testify testify along along with with the the thousands thousands of of civilians downtown on the the Fourth ofof July July to to celebrate, celebrate, video video surveillance surveillance also also captured two groups captured groups ofof actors actors inn a physical physical altercation altercation inside of inside of Point State State Park near the near the end of the firework of the display. display. The The surveillance surveillance videos videos show show that that the the group group separated separated at at some point point and walked walked separately into nto the city the city before ultimately meeting ultimately meeting back up up with each other at the other the Agnes Agnes Katz Plaza Plaza where the the shooting shooting occurred at occurred at approximately 1 111:00 :00 p.m. p.m.

Video Video surveillance surveillance would would show show that that when thethe two groups came together groups together in n the the plaza, plaza, a verbal verbal altercation begins altercation begins among several several individuals. ndividuals. Some begin to to physically physically fight each other. other. At At approximately 1 1:02, a male wearing 1102, wearing a white white tank top top and jean shorts is observed is observed having having a gun out out in in his hand and begins begins firing. This individual firing. individual was was identified identified as thethe defendant, defendant, Camerin Caldwell, Caldwell, from from the the video video evidence evidence by his stepfather, Antonio stepfather, Antonio Wynn, Wynn, and his mother, mother, Rayshonna Rayshonna Caldwell .... Caldwell ....

Once thethe defendant defendant beings beings firing firing thethe gun, gun, Keyari Keyari Wynn, the Wynn, the defendant's stepbrother, stepbrother, iss observed observed to to fall fall to the to the ground, ground, and Kenneth Green iss seen attempting attempting to to run run prior to collapsing where police to collapsing police find find him him on their arrival. The arrival. The defendant defendant iss then observed observed to to run from the run from the plaza past plaza past the the dumpster dumpster with with a firearm firearm visible visible in n his hand and isis seen throwing throwing the firearm into the the firearm into the dumpster where itt was dumpster was later ater recovered. recovered. At At no no times times does the does the defendant defendant stop stop to to render render aid. aid.

Scientist Thomas Thomas Morgan from from the the Allegheny County Office of Office of the the Medical Medical Examiner Examiner would testify testify that that hehe performs performs an examination on the the ballistics evidence evidence in in this case and documented same at report report number number 199 LAB 05264. 05264. Scientist Morgan would would testify testify that he examined the the 9-millimeter 9-millimeter Taurus pistol pistol recovered recovered on scene scene from from the the dumpster. dumpster. He wouldwould testify testify that that the the firearm was firearm was test-fired test-fired and found found toto be operable operable and to to have a barrel barrel length ength of of less e than 15 15 inches. inches. He would also also testify testify that that he examined eight eight spent spent 9-millimeter 9-mil imeter cartridge cartridge casings casings recovered recovered on scene, scene, and he he would would confirm that his examination revealed confirm revealed that that all all eight eight 88 casings casings were discharged discharged from from the firearm he the Taurus firearm he examined. examined. The The evidence would show show that firearm that this firearm recovered recovered and used used in n this instance was registered nstance was registered toto a stepbrother stepbrother of of the the Defendant, Defendant, Keanu Wynn ....

Victim Victim Kenneth Green, Green, who was was shot shot multiple multiple times in n the the upper upper and lower ower extremities and body, body, would testify that t was the defendant, testify that it was the defendant, Camerin Caldwell, Caldwell, who shot shot him him that that day. day. Kenneth Green would would testify testify that that the the two groups groups of of males males that that date fighting fighting belong belong to to two different different gangs, gangs, AFN and Choppa Boys. Boys. Green would explain that that these these are rival rival gangs gangs that that were releasing releasing YouTube message videos videos against against each otherother at at the the time. time. They had originally originally fought fought inin Point Point State State Park earlier thatthat night, night, but but each had gone their separate waysways until until they ran into nto each other other again at at Katz Plaza. Plaza. Green would testify testify that that he knows knows thethe defendant defendant Caldwell Caldwell because they used to to be friends and hung out out in n ninth grade together. together. They eventually grew grew apart apart as as they began to to hang out out with different different people. people.

On On thethe night night in in question, question, Caldwell Caldwell and Green gotgot into into a fistfight. fistfight. Green lost o track ofof Caldwell Caldwell and was was standing standing there watching the others others engaged and then sawsaw Camerin Caldwell Caldwell with a gun in in his hand and saw saw Caldwell Caldwell start start firing. firing.

The Commonwealth Commonwealth would have presented evidence at at trial trial that that the defendant defendant was was 18 8 years years old old atat the the time time of of this incident incident and did did not not have a valid valid license license toto carry a concealed weapon. weapon. Additionally, Additionally, the defendant defendant was was a person prohibited prohibited from from possessing possessing a firearm firearm asas a result result of of an Fl1 robbery robbery conviction at at Juvenile Juvenile Case Number 201 702191 Number 201702191 with a disposition date ofof 4/1 9/19. 4/19/19.

Through the course of of the trial, trial, the Commonwealth Commonwealth would have have presented medical medical records records to support support the charges. charges. The medical medical records records would havehave established established that that Kenneth Kenneth Green Green suffered suffered six bullet bullet wounds wounds to to his body. body. He required multiple surgeries multiple surgeries and still has at still has at least east one bullet bullet lodged odged in n his stomach. stomach. He suffered suffered severe severe damage damage to to his his colon colon and and kidneys kidneys which which require

99 ongoing ongoing treatment treatment and his injuries resulted resulted in n the the amputation of eft eg of his le ft le g above the knee. the knee.

The The medical medical records from from Keyari Keyari Wynn would show show that that he suffered suffered a debilitating debilitating gunshot gunshot would to to his head on July July 4th, 4th, 2019. As a result of 2019. As of his injuries, Keyari was njuries, Keyari was left e with with permanent permanent brain brain damage requiring constant care. requiring constant care. He remained remained nonverbal nonverbal and required required a ventilator and feeding feeding tube until until he eventually succumbed to to his injuries related related to to this incident ncident and dieddied on or or about about May May 14th, 14th, 2021.

Dr. Dr. Todd Luckasevic, Luckasevic, medical medical examiner examiner atat the the Allegheny County OfficeOffice of of the the Medical Medical Examiner, Examiner, would testify testify that that he performed performed an autopsy on Keyari Keyari Wynn at at Case Number Number 21 21 COR COR 04220. 04220. He would testify testify that that his autopsy showed that that asas a result of of the the gunshot gunshot wound to to the the head from from thethe July 4th, 4th, 2019 2019 incident, incident, the the bullet bullet lacerated acerated thethe skin, skin, subcutaneous subcutaneous tissue tissue and muscle of of the the scalp, scalp, fractured fractured the the skull skull and lacerated acerated the the brain. brain. His opinion would be that that Keyari Keyari Wynn dieddied as as a result ofof complications complications from from a penetrating penetrating gunshot gunshot would to to the the head and that that his manner manner of of death waswas homicide, homicide, and with that, that, the the Commonwealth Commonwealth would rest, rest, Your Your Honor. Honor.

PT at at 10-16. 10-16.

III. Ill. Discussion

In n his Pa.R.A.P. Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) 1925(b) statement, statement, Mr. Mr. Caldwell Caldwell alleges alleges three three errors. errors. Each

of of Mr. Mr. Caldwell's claims claims lacks acks merit, merit, and the the Court Court will will address address them them in in reverse reverse

order. order.

A. A. Mr. Mr. Caldwell Caldwell Was Was Informed Informed That That He Could Receive Consecutive Sentences Sentences

According According to to Mr. Mr. Caldwell, Caldwell. this this Court Court erred by not not informing nforming him him that that the

Court Court “could "could impose consecutive terms terms of of imprisonment." mprisonment." See See Pa.R.A.P. Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) 1925(b)

Statement Statement at at U3. 3. Such Such an an argument argument isi clearly belied belied by by the the record. record. As As set set forth io 10 above on pages pages two through five, Mr. Caldwell five, Mr. Caldwell was was apprised apprised of of the the possibility of possibility of

consecutive sentences consecutive sentences and acknowledged that that he could could receive receive the same. the same.

The instant allegation The allegation of of error fails.

B. B. Mr. Caldwell Mr. Caldwell Was Was Not Not Promised Promised A Ten- Ten- To To Twenty- Year Sentence. Twenty-Year Sentence.

Mr. Caldwell Mr. Caldwell further asserts that that his plea plea counsel was “ineffective counsel was "ineffective for

promising [Mr. promising [Mr. Caldwell] Caldwell] that that he would receive sentence of 10 receive a sentence 10 to to 20 years years

imprisonment."11 See Pa.R.A.P. imprisonment. 1925(b) Statement Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement at atfl 2. 2. Such a claim claim lacks acks

· merit. merit.

The Superior The Superior Court Court has has explained: explained:

[A] claim [A] claim for ineffective neffective assistance assistance of of counsel counsel in n connection withwith advice rendered regarding advice rendered regarding whether to whether to plead guilty plead guilty iss cognizable cognizable under under the the PCRA PCRA pursuant pursuant to to Pa. C.S. 42 Pa. C.S. § 9543(a)(2)(ii) 9543(a)(2)(H)..... .. .

Pennsylvania has Pennsylvania has recast recast the the two-factor two-factor inquiry regarding the regarding the effectiveness of of counsel counsel set forth forth by the the United States United States Supreme Court Court in n Strickland Strickland v. v. Washington...... as the the following following three-factor inquiry: three-factor inquiry:

In n order order to to obtain relief based on an [ineffective assistance of [ineffective assistance of counsel] counsel] claim, claim, a petitioner petitioner must must establish establish (1) (1) the the underlying underlying claim has claim has arguable arguable merit; merit; (2) no reasonable reasonable basis existed existed for counsel’s counsel's actions or failure failure to to act; act; and (3) petitioner petitioner suffered prejudice suffered prejudice as a result of of counsel's error such that that there there iss a reasonable reasonable probability that that the the result of the the proceeding proceeding would would have been different absent such error. absent error.

Trial Trial counsel counsel isis presumed toto be effective, effective, and [a [a petitioner] bears petitioner] bears the the burden of pleading and proving of pleading proving each of the the three three factors factors by a preponderance of of the the evidence. evidence. 11 11 The right to to constitutionally effective effective assistance assistance of of counsel extends to counsel extends to counsel's role n guiding role in guiding his client with regard toto the the consequences consequences of of entering entering into nto a guilty plea. plea.

Allegations Allegations of of ineffectiveness ineffectiveness in in connection with the entry of of a guilty plea will will serve as basis for as a basis for relief only if the effectiveness effectiveness caused the defendant defendant to to enter enter anan involuntary oror unknowing plea. plea. Where Where the defendant enters defendant enters his plea on plea the advice of of counsel, counsel, the voluntariness voluntariness of of the plea depends depends on whether whether counsel’s counsel's advice waswas within the range of of competence competence demanded demanded of of attorneys attorneys in in criminal criminal cases. cases.

Thus, Thus, to establish prejudice, prejudice, thethe defendant defendant must must show show that that there there isi aa reasonable reasonable probability probability that, that, but but for for counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would would have have insisted insisted on on going going toto trial. trial. The The reasonable reasonable probability probability test test isis not not aa stringent stringent one; one; itit merely merely refers refers to to a probability sufficient to undermine the confidence in a probability sufficient to undermine the confidence in the the outcome. outcome.

Commonwealth Commonwealth v. v. Barndt, Barndt, 74 74 A.3d A.3d 185, 185, 191-92 191-92 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. Ct. Ct. 2013) 2013} (quotation (quotation

marks marks and and citations citations omitted). omitted).

Here, Here, the the record record reveals reveals that that Mr. Mr. Caldwell Caldwell fully fully understood understood -- by by his his own own

admission admission -- that that he he could could face face aa maximum maximum sentence sentence of of 36 36 to to 72 72 years' years'

imprisonment. imprisonment. See See PT PT at at 8-9. 8-9. The The record record also also makes makes clear clear that that there there ”[wa]s "[wa]s no no

agreement agreement as as to to sentence" sentence" between between the the parties. parties. Id. I . at at 3. 3. Further, Further, Mr. Mr. Caldwell Caldwell

affirmed affirmed under under oath oath that that no no one, one, not not even even his his attorney, attorney, had had “promised "promised [him] [him]

anything anything inin exchange exchange for for [his] [his] guilty guilty plea plea other other than than the the terms terms of of [the] [the] plea plea

bargain!,]” bargain[,]" which, which, as as noted, noted, did did not not involve in an an agreement agreement as as to to sentence. sentence. See See

12 12 Guilty Plea Plea Explanation Of Of Defendant's Rights at at 9, 9, Question 56; 56; see see also also PT at at 2

&6-7 6-7 (Mr. (Mr. Caldwell Caldwell acknowledging that that he completed the the Guilty Plea Plea

Explanation Of Of Defendant's Defendant's Rights Rights form form and answered every question "truthfully "truthfully

and honestly[,]" honestly(,]" among other other things). things).

The Superior Superior Court Court has has stated: stated:

The longstanding ongstanding rule rule of of Pennsylvania lawaw is that that a defendant defendant may may not not challenge his guilty plea plea by asserting that he lied while under oath, asserting that he lied while under oath, even if he he avers avers that that counsel counsel induced the the lies. ies. A person who who elects elects to to plead guilty is bound bound by by the the statements statements he makes makes inn open court while under oath open court while under oath and he may not la he may not ater ter asserts asserts grounds grounds for for withdrawing the the plea plea which which contradict contradict the the statements statements he he made made atat his his plea plea colloquy. . . . colloquy ....

Commonwealth Commonwealth v, v. Pollard Pol a , 832 832 A.2d A.2d 51 7, 523-24 517, 523-24 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. Ct. Ct. 2003); 2003); see see also also id. id.

at at 524 524 ("a ("a defendant defendant may may not not knowingly knowingly lie l e to to the the court court while while under under oath" oath" and and

"[w]e "[w)e cannot cannot permit permit aa defendant defendant to to postpone postpone the the final final disposition disposition of of his his case case by by

lying lying to to the the court court and and later later alleging alleging that that his his lies l es were were induced induced by by the the prompting prompting

of of counsel" counsel" (citation (citation omitted)). omitted)).

Based Based on on the the foregoing, foregoing, Mr. Mr. Caldwell's Caldwell's instant instant claim claim of of ineffectiveness ineffectiveness

fails. fails. The The record record demonstrates demonstrates that that there there was was no no agreement agreement as as to to sentence sentence inin

exchange exchange for for Mr. Mr. Caldwell's Caldwell's guilty guilty plea, plea, that that Mr. Mr. Caldwell Caldwell admitted admitted that that he he

knew knew he he faced faced aa potential potential sentence sentence of of 36 36 to to 72 72 years’ years' incarceration, incarceration, and and that that

Mr. Mr. Caldwell Caldwell swore swore he he had had not not been been promised promised anything anything (even ( even by by his his counsel) counsel)

other other than than the the plea plea agreement agreement as as stated stated on on the the record. record. He He cannot cannot now now assert assert

otherwise otherwise and, and, thereby, thereby, obtain obtain relief. relief. His His claim claim that that counsel counsel promised promised him him aa ten- ten-

13 13 to twenty-year to twenty-year sentence sentence lacks acks merit. merit. No ineffective ineffective assistance assistance of of counsel was counsel was

properly pled proven. pied or proven.

C. C. Counsel Did Counsel Did Not Not Cause Mr. Mr. Caldwell Caldwell To To Enter Enter An Unlawful Unlawful Plea. Plea.

Mr. Mr. Caldwell’s Caldwell's final final claim claim of purported purported error iss that that plea plea counsel counsel was was

"ineffective for causing “ineffective causing [Mr. [Mr. Caldwell] Caldwell] to to enter enter an unknowing, unknowing, unintelligent unintelligent and

involuntary guilty guilty plea plea by not not providing providing [him] [him] with with accurate and sufficient sufficient

information nformation that [he] [he] needed to to decide whether or decide whether or not not to to enter enter a plea plea of of

guilty [.]" See Pa. guilty[.]" R.A.P. 1925(b) Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement Statement at 1],I 1. 1. Such a claim claim fails.

The The standard standard for ineffective assistance of neffective assistance counsel as itt relates to of counsel to a guilty guilty

plea has plea has been set set forth forth above. above. In n addition, addition, the the Superior Superior Court Court has has explained: explained:

A court court accepting accepting a defendant's guilty guilty plea plea iss required required to to conduct conduct an on-the-record on-the-record inquiry nquiry during during the the plea plea colloquy [to [to determine determine the the lawfulness awfulness ofof the the plea]. plea]. The The colloquy must must inquire nquire into nto the the following following areas: areas:

(11 ) Does Does the the defendant defendant understand understand the the nature of the the charges to charges to which he or she s pleading she is pleading guilty guilty or or no/o contendere?

(2) Iss there there a factual factual basis for the the plea?

(3) Does Does the the defendant defendant understand understand that that he or or she she has has the right to the to trial trial by jury?

(4) Does Does the the defendant defendant understand understand that that he he or or she she is is presumed innocent nnocent until until found found guilty?

(5) Iss the the defendant defendant aware of the the permissible permissible range of of sentences and/or sentences and/or fines for the the offenses charged?

(6) Iss the the defendant defendant aware that that the the judge judge iss not not bound the by the terms of of any plea agreement plea agreement tendered unless the judge the accepts such agreement? judge accepts

14 14 Pollard Pollard,, 832 A.2d at at 522-23 (citation (citation omitted). omitted}. Such areas areas of nquiry of in quiry may may be

addressed by the the court court in in a "written "written colloquy that that isis read, read, completed, completed, signed signed by

the the defendant, defendant, and made part part of of the the record of of the plea proceedings [,]" see proceedings[,]"

Pa. R. Crim. P. 590 at Pa.R.Crim.P. at cmmt„ cmmt., which occurred in n this case, case, see PT at at 6-7. 6-7. "Our "Our law aw

presumes presumes that that a defendant defendant who enters enters a guilty plea was was aware of of what what he was was

doing[, doing[, and the defendant] .. bears defendant] ... bears the burden of of proving otherwise." otherwise." Pollard,

832 A2d at at 523. 523.

Here, Here, the the Mr. Mr. Caldwell's Caldwell's Guilty Plea Explanation Of Of Defendant's Defendant's Rights Rights

form form and oral oral colloquy during during the plea plea proceedings, proceedings, as as well well as as the the

Commonwealths’ Commonwealths' factual factual recitation, recitation, demonstrate demonstrate that that Mr. Mr. Caldwell's Caldwell's guilty guilty plea plea

was was knowing, knowing, intelligent, intelligent, and and voluntary, voluntary, and and thus thus lawful. lawful. He He has has not not

demonstrated demonstrated otherwise. otherwise. Accordingly, Accordingly, his his argument argument that that plea plea counsel counsel did did not not

provide provide him him with with accurate accurate and and sufficient sufficient information information lacks lacks merit. merit. Mr. Mr. Caldwell Caldwell

has has not not properly properly pled pied or or proven proven ineffective in assistance assistance of of counsel. counsel.

IV. IV. Conclusion Conclusion

Based Based on on the the foregoing, foregoing, the the Order Order should should be be affirmed. affirmed. Mr. Mr. Caldwell Caldwell was was

not not entitled entitled to to PCRA PCRA relief. relief. The The Department Department of of Court Court Records, Records, Criminal Criminal Division, Division,

isis ordered ordered and and directed directed to to transmit transmit the the record record ini the the above-captioned above-captioned matter matter to to

the the Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Superior Superior Court Court without without delay. delay.

BY BY THE THE COURT: COURT:

cs+ca Dated: Sh+l34 46--- Susan Susan Evashavik Evashavik DiLucente DiLucente J.

15 15 cc: cc: Ronald M. Deputy District Attorney Ronald M. Wabby, Wabby, Jr. Office Office of of the the District Attorney 401 401 Allegheny County Courthouse Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA PA 15219 15219

Camerin Caldwell Caldwell QP1482 QP1 482 SCI SCI Forest Forest P.O. P.O. Box B0x 945 286 Woodland Drive Drive Marienville, Marienville, PA PA 16239