Com. v. Flamer, N.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: October 15, 2025
• Docket: 1108 EDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S17033-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : NAFEAST FLAMER, : : Appellant : No. 1108 EDA 2024

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered March 8, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0007713-2009

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

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED OCTOBER 15, 2025

Appellant, Nafeast Flamer, appeals from the order entered in the

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, which denied his petition under

the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). 1 We affirm.

The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows.

Allen Moment, Jr. (“Victim”) was shot approximately 13-14 times on January

20, 2006, resulting in serious injuries. Victim remained in the hospital for

most of the next two and a half years due to those injuries and ultimately died

as a result on August 6, 2008. The Commonwealth charged Appellant, Marvin

Flamer (“Co-defendant Flamer”), and Hakim Bond with first-degree murder,

conspiracy, and related offenses in connection with Victim’s shooting.

Appellant and Co-defendant Flamer were tried together, and Mr. Bond was

____________________________________________

1 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. J-S17033-25

tried separately. Co-defendant Flamer is Appellant’s uncle and Appellant is

Victim’s cousin.

A jury trial commenced on January 14, 2014. The Commonwealth called

Aisha Williams to testify. Prior to her testimony, the court placed Ms. Williams

under oath and questioned her outside of the presence of the jury. Ms.

Williams affirmed that she witnessed Victim’s shooting and provided two

statements to law enforcement about what she saw. She further

acknowledged that on prior occasions when she was called to testify in this

matter, she had recanted her statement and claimed that she did not see

anything. Ms. Williams stated that she had recanted because she was afraid

for her life. She further told the court that she would only be willing to testify

at trial if the courtroom was cleared of all spectators. Based on her averments,

the court found that there were no less restrictive conditions under which Ms.

Williams would be able to testify and cleared the courtroom of all spectators

prior to her testimony.

Ms. Williams testified that she has known Victim, Appellant, and Co-

defendant Flamer for her whole life. She stated that on January 20, 2006,

she saw Victim on the street and asked to purchase drugs from him. Victim

told her that he would bring the drugs to her house later and she started to

walk away from him. When she was walking, she saw Co-defendant Flamer

driving up the street in a car. She also saw Appellant, Mr. Bond and a third

person, all wearing dark hoodies, walk up behind Victim. At the time, Victim

was talking to someone on the phone. When she neared the corner of the

-2- J-S17033-25

street, she heard multiple shots. She turned around, saw that Victim was

shot, and ran towards him. Victim stumbled down the street towards her and

she caught him as he fell. Ms. Williams did not initially report what she saw

to law enforcement because she was afraid. She subsequently provided

statements to law enforcement, identifying Appellant, Mr. Bond and Co-

defendant Flamer by photo. Ms. Williams affirmed that she was telling the

truth at trial and during the two prior statements that she gave to law

enforcement. Ms. Williams also affirmed that she was being untruthful when

she recanted her statements under oath during previous proceedings in this

case.

Detective Bill Urban testified that he interviewed Ms. Williams on March

17, 2008. Ms. Willaims’ statement on that day aligned with her testimony at

trial. Detective Angela Gaines testified that she interviewed Ms. Williams on

a later date and Ms. Williams provided a statement that largely aligned with

her prior statement and testimony at trial.

Shareem Nelson testified that he was good friends with Victim. At trial,

Mr. Nelson stated that he did not see anything related to the shooting. He

affirmed that his signature was present on a statement that was provided to

law enforcement at an earlier date. Mr. Nelson largely recanted his prior

statement and denied that he was doing so because he was afraid for his life.

Detective George Pirrone testified that he took a statement from Mr.

Nelson on August 14, 2008. Mr. Nelson stated that he was on the street with

Victim on the night that Victim was shot. Shortly after they separated, Mr.

-3- J-S17033-25

Nelson saw four guys in black hoodies running towards Victim. He called

Victim on the phone and told him that there were four guys coming towards

him. Victim responded, “I’m cool, they are my peoples.” Mr. Nelson returned

to the area where Victim was and saw that Victim had been shot. Mr. Nelson

went to the hospital where Victim was taken and told Victim’s family members

that Victim stated that “his peoples” shot him. Mr. Nelson understood this

statement to mean that someone in Victim’s family shot Victim. Mr. Nelson

also reported that when he later visited Victim in the hospital, Victim told him

that his cousin shot him.

Marquet Parsons, Victim’s uncle, testified that on the night Victim was

shot, Mr. Nelson came to the hospital. While there, Mr. Nelson stated multiple

times that Victim’s cousin shot Victim. Subsequently, Victim also told Mr.

Parsons that Victim’s cousin shot Victim.

Jeffrey Chandler, Jr. testified that he is Victim’s brother and was present

on the street when Victim was shot. He stated that Victim was on the phone

when a few people ran up behind Victim. Victim was still on the phone when

he turned around to look at the individuals who were coming towards him.

Immediately thereafter, Victim was shot. Mr. Chandler stated that he could

not identify who shot Victim because they were wearing dark hoodies. When

he talked to Victim at the hospital, Victim told Mr. Chandler that Appellant and

Mr. Bond shot him.

Dr. Carrie Sims, who was admitted as an expert in trauma and surgical

critical care, testified that she had been treating Victim since he was brought

-4- J-S17033-25

to the hospital on the night of the shooting. When Victim arrived at the

hospital, he had sustained 13 to 14 bullet wounds, and his bowels were

eviscerating out of his abdomen, requiring multiple surgeries. Victim

remained in the hospital, on and off with periods of time at a rehabilitation

facility, until he died. During that time, Victim’s abdomen and legs had to be

kept open to relieve pressure. Victim went into kidney failure, requiring

dialysis. Victim required a tracheostomy and a constant foley catheter. Victim

suffered from repeated infections and serious complications that required a

craniotomy and cardiac surgery. Victim also had no movement of his lower

extremities and limited movement of his upper extremities. Dr. Sims opined

that Victim’s case was the most horrific suffering she had seen in her career.

Although Victim was suffering from serious physical injuries, he remained

largely lucid, intelligent and articulate throughout.

Dr. Sims testified that sometime in late January or early February of

2008, she had a meeting with Victim and his close family. Dr. Sims was

planning to go to a medical conference and scheduled this meeting beforehand

to discuss Victim’s prognosis and options because she was worried Victim

would die while she was away. During this meeting, she told Victim and his

family that she was concerned that Victim would not recover from his bacterial

infection. She informed them that she believed Victim was not likely to live

through this process or leave the hospital. Victim did not die while Dr. Sims

was away but lived for several more months until August 6, 2008. Dr. Sims

testified that she wrote a letter to the Assistant District Attorney (“ADA”) on

-5- J-S17033-25

December 19, 2008, which documented that she held this meeting with Victim

and his family regarding her belief that Victim was critically ill and likely to

die. Dr. Sims stated that she wrote this letter after Victim’s death at the ADA’s

request.

Patricia Gooding, Victim’s mother, testified that while he was in the

hospital, Victim told her multiple times that his cousins shot him but refused

to identify any names or talk to law enforcement regarding the shooting. Ms.

Gooding confirmed that Dr. Sims had a meeting with Victim and their family

in late January or early February of 2008, during which Dr. Sims informed

them that she did not believe Victim would survive his injuries. After this

meeting, Victim agreed to talk to law enforcement about the shooting and Ms.

Gooding contacted a detective for this purpose. At this time, Victim had

limited bodily functions, difficulty breathing and could not walk or use his

hands. Nevertheless, Victim was lucid and mentally coherent. Detectives

came to the hospital and interviewed Victim on February 4, 2008. Ms. Gooding

and Mr. Parsons were present for this interview. Victim identified Appellant

and Co-defendant Flamer by photo and Ms. Gooding signed the photographs

to document Victim’s selections. Ms. Gooding testified that Victim answered

the questions of his own accord and was not directed or influenced by anyone

in the room. Mr. Parsons also testified that Victim was not coached or directed

by anyone in the room when answering the questions.

Detective Urban further testified that a note was left on his desk on

February 1st or 2nd of 2008, informing him that Ms. Gooding called and stated

-6- J-S17033-25

Victim wanted to speak with detectives. The note was marked as C-25 and

shown to Detective Urban. He confirmed that the note also stated that Ms.

Gooding requested that the detectives not speak with Victim without her

present. On cross-examination, Appellant’s counsel asked about this note and

Detective Urban confirmed again that Ms. Gooding requested to be present

when detectives spoke with Victim. After seeing the note, Detective Urban

called Ms. Gooding and spoke with her on the phone. She informed him that

Victim’s doctor told them that Victim would not live much longer and Victim

wanted to speak with detectives. Detective Urban set up an interview with

Victim on February 4, 2008. Detective Urban, Detective Edward Tolliver, Ms.

Gooding and Mr. Parsons were all present during this interview. Neither Ms.

Gooding nor Mr. Parsons said anything while Detective Urban asked Victim

questions. Detective Urban further confirmed that Victim answered the

questions of his own accord and was not coached or directed by anyone in the

room. Detective Urban returned to the hospital on February 14, 2008, and

took a video of Victim identifying a photo of Appellant, Mr. Bond and Co-

defendant Flamer.

Detective Edward Tolliver testified that he accompanied Detective Urban

on February 4, 2008, when Victim was interviewed. Ms. Gooding and Mr.

Parsons were also present for the interview. On this day, Victim had difficulty

breathing, resulting in significant difficulty speaking verbally. Victim was also

unable to move much of his body. Nevertheless, Victim was lucid and

coherent, and it was evident that he understood what the detectives were

-7- J-S17033-25

asking him. Victim nodded yes when asked if he knew who shot him. Victim

was shown a photo array and asked to indicate if he saw a photo of the

individuals who shot him. Victim nodded yes when shown Appellant and Mr.

Bond’s photographs. Victim also verbally consented when the detectives told

him that Ms. Gooding and Mr. Parsons were going to sign the photographs

that he selected. When asked if he knew anyone else involved, Victim stated

that Co-defendant Flamer was the car driver. Detective Tolliver testified that

Ms. Gooding and Mr. Parsons were standing behind Victim, outside of his view,

and did not say anything during the interview. He further confirmed that no

one in the room coached or directed Victim’s answers.

Allen Moment, Sr., Victim’s father, testified that he ran into Abdul Taylor

in the spring of 2008 and asked him if he had anything to do with Victim’s

shooting. Mr. Taylor told him that Appellant, Mr. Bond and Co-defendant

Flamer conspired to kill Victim. Mr. Taylor further stated that Appellant, Mr.

Bond and Co-defendant Flamer all admitted to him that they were involved in

the shooting. Mr. Moment testified that there was a feud between Victim’s

friends and Appellant and Mr. Bond. Victim was attempting to act as a

peacekeeper between the groups to end the feud. While Victim was in the

hospital, Mr. Moment asked him what happened. Victim told him that his

cousins shot him. Victim further specified that that he was on the phone with

Mr. Nelson and said, “These are my cousins, man. They all right.” They

started shooting at him and Victim tried to run away but Co-defendant Flamer

blocked the alleyway.

-8- J-S17033-25

Detective James Pitts testified that he interviewed Mr. Taylor on August

13, 2008. Mr. Taylor reported that two days prior to Victim’s shooting, he

heard Appellant and Mr. Bond planning to harm Victim, and they had multiple

guns with them. Appellant and Mr. Bond believed that Victim set them up

during a prior incident when someone shot at Appellant and Mr. Bond. A few

days after Victim was shot, Appellant’s best friend told Mr. Taylor that

Appellant and Mr. Bond shot Victim. Detective Pitts confirmed that Mr. Taylor

signed this statement. In May of 2010, Mr. Taylor was shot and killed.

Detective Pitts testified that papers containing lyrics or poems written by

Appellant were recovered from Appellant’s prison cell. These lyrics contain

content about violent acts that would be perpetrated against “rats” including,

but not limited to, the following:

When I get flicks of my baby mom with my son on her lap, I start to stress. I be wanting to snap because my manz on the streets, but not hunting the rat … that’s telling on me. Motherfucker, I’m facing life. Stop sitting there dwelling on me. There crackers is fitting to drop a felon on me. The people I love the most bailing on me.

* * *

I’m gonna introduce you to my … man Satan too. He want to meet you. He been patiently waiting, too. I'm tellin you don't like him an you been hating too. I then made a blind man walk off a cliff. I told a deaf man that his momma a bitch. I told a retarded man learn not to snitch or you going be with them rats and worms in a ditch.

(N.T. Trial, 1/16/14, at 143-44, 147).

Sabrina Taylor, Mr. Taylor’s mother, testified that before Mr. Taylor was

-9- J-S17033-25

shot, it became known in the neighborhood that Mr. Taylor provided a

statement regarding Victim’s case. She stated that Mr. Taylor told her that

people had a hit out on him and were going to kill him.

Derrick White was convicted for shooting and killing Mr. Taylor. Malik

Sutton testified that he heard Mr. White on multiple occasions talk about

getting rid of Mr. Taylor because it was the only way to bring Appellant home.

At some point, Mr. White learned about Mr. Taylor’s statement and

conversations about killing Mr. Taylor intensified. After Mr. Taylor was

murdered, Mr. Sutton asked Mr. White if he killed Mr. Taylor, and Mr. White

smirked in response.2

Appellant called Jeffrey Chandler, Sr. to testify in Appellant’s defense.

Mr. Chandler testified that he was Victim’s stepfather. He stated that when

he asked Victim what happened, Victim stated that his cousins did it. Mr.

Chandler asked Victim if Appellant was the one who shot him, and Victim

denied it. On cross-examination, Mr. Chandler stated that he believed Victim

denied that Appellant had shot him because Victim was trying to cover for

Appellant.

On January 23, 2014, the jury found Appellant guilty of first-degree

murder, criminal conspiracy, carrying a firearm on the streets of Philadelphia,

2 The parties stipulated that Mr. White visited Appellant in prison on multiple

occasions and that Appellant spoke with Mr. White on the phone on multiple occasions.

- 10 - J-S17033-25

and possessing an instrument of crime. The court ordered the preparation of

a presentence investigation report and scheduled sentencing for March 14,

2014. At sentencing, Appellant’s counsel highlighted the fact that Appellant

was only 17 years old when he committed this offense and urged the court to

impose a sentence that allowed for the possibility of parole. Appellant’s

counsel further highlighted the immaturity of Appellant’s age, Appellant’s

susceptibility to negative influences and that Appellant did not complete high

school. In arguing that Appellant had potential for rehabilitation, Appellant’s

counsel noted that Appellant had the support of a “stable family,” highlighting

that Appellant’s mother was present in support of him and has done her best

to provide for his needs. Appellant’s counsel urged the court to impose a term

of 35 years to life imprisonment. The court sentenced Appellant to life

imprisonment without the possibility of parole on the first-degree murder

conviction. The court imposed an aggregate sentence of 21 to 45 years’

incarceration for Appellant’s remaining convictions, to be served

consecutively.

This Court affirmed Appellant’s conviction on May 11, 2016. See

Commonwealth v. Flamer, 299 EDA 2014 (Pa.Super. filed May 11, 2016)

(unpublished memorandum), appeal denied, 661 Pa. 610, 237 A.3d 974

(2020). On March 9, 2016, Appellant filed his first PCRA petition. The court

appointed counsel, who filed an amended PCRA petition, asserting among

other things, that Appellant’s appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to

- 11 - J-S17033-25

file a petition for allowance of appeal with our Supreme Court. On January

31, 2020, the PCRA court reinstated Appellant’s right to file a petition for

allowance of appeal. On February 29, 2020, Appellant filed a petition for

allowance of appeal nunc pro tunc and our Supreme Court denied Appellant’s

petition on August 12, 2020. See id.

Appellant timely filed the instant PCRA petition on August 14, 2020,

asserting various claims of Brady3 violations and ineffective assistance of

counsel. On January 25, 2024, the PCRA court issued notice of its intent to

dismiss the petition without a hearing pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907, and the

court formally dismissed the petition on March 8, 2024. Appellant filed a

timely notice of appeal on April 6, 2024. On April 9, 2024, the court ordered

Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal

pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and Appellant timely complied on April 30,

2024.

Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

1. The PCRA Court erred in dismissing claim one of the PCRA for lack of merit, wherein an email was discovered between ADA Richard Sax and Dr. Carrie Sims wherein [ADA] Sax advised Dr. Sims that her report was not sufficient to support the dying declaration he required in this matter. This is information that was not shared prior to trial, is evidence of [ADA] Sax effectuating change in evidence to support his assertion at trial and could have been used as impeachment evidence regarding the qualification of the video recorded “interview” of [Victim] as a dying declaration and was suppressed by the Commonwealth. ____________________________________________

3 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).

- 12 - J-S17033-25

2. The PCRA Court erred in dismissing claim two of the PCRA for lack of merit, wherein evidence was discovered that [Victim’s] mother, Patricia Gooding reached out stating that [Victim] was willing to give a statement, but this should not be done without her being present. This undoubtedly calls into question the nature and veracity of the statement, which was central to this case, especially given [the] method by which the statement was taken and presented to the jury in this matter.

3. The PCRA Court erred in dismissing claim three of the PCRA for lack of merit, wherein the Commonwealth failed to provide evidence of the significant issues regarding Detective James Pitts prior to trial, which ultimately led to his arrest and impending trial. The issues with Detective Pitts are absolutely meritorious and an evidentiary hearing should have been granted. The court erred in determining that because Detective Pitts never took a statement from the [Appellant] his misconduct is immaterial, he was, however, involved in taking the statement from Allen Moment which was central to this case and is currently awaiting trial on multiple charges of perjury and obstruction of the administration of law for misconduct in other matters, which is evidence of a course of conduct that is irrefutable and thus this claim has merit.

4. The PCRA Court erred in dismissing claim four raising an ineffectiveness claim regarding the failure of sentencing counsel to present mitigation at the time of sentencing wherein, the [Appellant] was a juvenile at the time the underlying homicide took place and thus was eligible for a non-life sentence pursuant to [Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012)] and [Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190, 136 S.Ct. 718, 193 L.Ed.2d 599 (2016).] Here, the court erred in not only finding that this claim lacks merit, but also alleging that, “you conspired to successfully murder a witness in this case after your arrest” a mere allegation of criminal activity for which the [Appellant] was never charged and evidence that should never have been considered at the time of sentencing, let alone in consideration of a claim being raised in PCRA.

- 13 - J-S17033-25

5. The PCRA Court erred in dismissing claim five as lacking merit, wherein the [Appellant] sought to incorporate evidence collected at an evidentiary hearing held on behalf of [Co-defendant] Flamer, wherein Ms. Aisha Williams testified on behalf of [Co-defendant] Flamer. The court avers that the testimony was incredible and therefore would not support either a Brady claim or after discovered recantation evidence. While [Co-defendant Flamer] and [Appellant] were codefendants and their convictions arise from the same criminal allegation, a hearing should have been granted on this claim to allow for an examination of Ms. Williams relating specifically to [Appellant].

(Appellant’s Brief at 6-7).

Our standard of review of the denial of a PCRA petition is limited to

examining whether the record evidence supports the court’s determination

and whether the court’s decision is free of legal error. Commonwealth v.

Ford, 947 A.2d 1251 (Pa.Super. 2008), appeal denied, 598 Pa. 779, 959 A.2d

319 (2008). This Court grants great deference to the findings of the PCRA

court if the record contains any support for those findings. Commonwealth

v. Boyd, 923 A.2d 513 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal denied, 593 Pa. 754, 932

A.2d 74 (2007). If the record supports a post-conviction court’s credibility

determination, it is binding on the appellate court. Commonwealth v.

Dennis, 609 Pa. 442, 17 A.3d 297 (2011).

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

applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Glenn B.

Bronson, we conclude Appellant’s issues merit no relief. The PCRA court

opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions

presented.

- 14 - J-S17033-25

Regarding Appellant’s first issue, the court found that in the email chain

between the ADA and Dr. Sims, the ADA merely asks Dr. Sims to provide

documentation of the family meeting she had with Victim and his family

regarding her belief that Victim would not survive for much longer. As the

contents of the email chain aligned with Dr. Sim’s testimony at trial, the emails

have no value for impeachment purposes and do not constitute Brady

material.4 (See PCRA Court Opinion, filed 7/1/24, at 5-8).

4 Appellant argues in his brief that the emails constitute Brady material because they demonstrate that there was no documentation of the family meeting in Victim’s medical records, Dr. Sims did not have a recollection of the exact date that she held the family meeting, and Dr. Sims wrote an addendum regarding the family meeting at the ADA’s request. In the email chain, the ADA emailed Dr. Sims asking her if there was documentation of the family meeting she held with Victim and his family. The ADA further specified that he was looking for documentation of Victim’s knowledge of his impending death, if true. Dr. Sims responded that she did not see any specific documentation of this meeting in Victim’s medical records but that would not be abnormal. Dr. Sims further stated that she would be happy to write an addendum to that effect because she was certain that she had multiple conversations with Victim and his family about the topic. The ADA responded asking Dr. Sims to include any specific words or phrasing she recalled using to communicate to Victim that she believed he would not live for much longer. Dr. Sims responded with the addendum and also stated that although she did not see any documentation of the meeting in Victim’s records, she was certain it occurred before she went on her trip.

The emails merely confirm Dr. Sims’ testimony at trial. At trial, Dr. Sims testified that sometime in late January or early February of 2008, she held a meeting with Victim and his family where she informed them that she did not believe Victim would live much longer. Dr. Sims further testified that this meeting occurred before she went away on her trip. Dr. Sims testified that the addendum was written months later after Victim’s death at the ADA’s request. On this record, we agree with the PCRA court that the emails do not provide any basis to impeach Dr. Sims.

- 15 - J-S17033-25

With respect to Appellant’s second issue, the court found that Appellant

failed to establish that the Commonwealth concealed the note from Victim’s

mother that was left on Detective Urban’s desk because the Commonwealth

presented the note as an exhibit at trial and Appellant’s counsel cross-

examined Detective Urban about the contents of the note. As such, the court

determined that Appellant’s second Brady claim was frivolous. (See PCRA

Court Opinion at 9).

Regarding Appellant’s claim that the Commonwealth violated Brady by

failing to disclose that Detective Pitts was on the Commonwealth’s “no call”

list at the time of Appellant’s trial, the court concluded that Appellant failed to

establish that he was prejudiced by any such concealment. The court noted

that Detective Pitts only testified to the statement made by Mr. Taylor and the

papers that were taken from Appellant’s jail cell. Excluding Detective Pitts’

testimony, the Commonwealth presented compelling evidence of Appellant’s

guilt, including Victim’s own statement, Ms. Williams’ testimony, and Mr.

Nelson’s statement. Additionally, Appellant failed to present any evidence

that Detective Pitts coerced or engaged in any misconduct towards any

witness in this case. As such, the court concluded that Appellant failed to

establish a Brady violation. (See PCRA Court Opinion at 9-11).

Regarding Appellant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the court

- 16 - J-S17033-25

determined that Appellant failed to establish prejudice. 5 The court reviewed

the newly developed mitigating evidence proffered by Appellant, along with

all the evidence available for the court’s consideration at the time of

sentencing, and determined that Appellant’s sentence would not have changed

even if counsel had presented the additional mitigating evidence. 6 See

Commonwealth v. Malloy, 579 Pa. 425, 856 A.2d 767 (2004) (holding that

in assessing prejudice at sentencing stage, court must reweigh evidence in

5 Notwithstanding the phrasing of Appellant’s issue in his statement of questions presented, the record makes clear that the court was aware at sentencing that Appellant was a juvenile at the time of the offenses at issue. As explained in the court’s opinion, the court carefully considered all factors outlined in 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1102.1(d) and decided that a life without parole sentence was appropriate here. (See PCRA Court Opinion at 12-13). See also Commonwealth v. Felder, ___ Pa. ___, 269 A.3d 1232 (2022) (holding that when imposing impose life without parole sentence for juvenile homicide offenders, sentencing courts are required to consider only relevant sentencing statutes, which will guarantee that sentencer considers juvenile’s youth and attendant characteristics as required by Miller).

6 In support of his claim, Appellant presented a mental health evaluation report authored by Dr. Anna Lawler on September 17, 2019. This report details struggles in Appellant’s upbringing. Specifically, Dr. Lawler notes that Appellant was born to very young parents. Appellant’s father was incarcerated when Appellant was very young and another individual who became a father figure to Appellant died when Appellant was young. Appellant further witnessed some instance of domestic abuse against his mother. Appellant had difficulty in school, dropped out when he was in the ninth grade, and tested at a low level for math and reading skills. Appellant further developed behavioral issues and began living with his grandmother. Dr. Lawler also concluded that Appellant suffered from depression, which was largely untreated and manifested in an inability to adjust. On this record, we see no reason to disturb the court’s conclusion that the mitigating evidence in Dr. Lawler’s report would not have overcome the significant aggravating factors present in this case.

- 17 - J-S17033-25

aggravation against totality of available mitigating evidence, including

evidence and argument that would have been presented at sentencing hearing

had trial counsel properly investigated such evidence). The court found that

the proffered mitigating evidence would not have significantly impacted the

court’s sentencing decision when weighed against the significant aggravating

factors present in Appellant’s case, including the extreme suffering of Victim,

multiple instances of witness intimidation, and Appellant’s involvement in the

murder of a witness.7 (See PCRA Court Opinion at 11-14).

As to Appellant’s claim that Ms. Williams recanted her testimony at a

PCRA evidentiary hearing for Co-defendant Flamer, the court determined that

an evidentiary hearing was not required in Appellant’s case on this claim. The

court concluded that Ms. Williams’ testimony at Co-defendant Flamer’s hearing

was completely incredible and did not give rise to an issue of fact warranting

7 Appellant cites to Commonwealth v. Berry, ___ Pa. ___, 323 A.3d 641 (2024) to support his claim that the court’s reliance on Appellant’s involvement in Mr. Taylor’s murder during sentencing was improper. In Berry, our Supreme Court concluded that the trial court erred in considering the appellant’s arrest record as a factor during sentencing because “arrests, without convictions, simply have no value as probative matter.” Id. at ___, 323 A.3d at 655 (quotation marks omitted). In this case, however, the court did not impermissibly rely on Appellant’s arrest record for unrelated matters but relied on the evidence that was presented and deemed admissible at Appellant’s trial. As such, Appellant has failed to establish that the court erred in considering this evidence at sentencing.

- 18 - J-S17033-25

an evidentiary hearing.8 As Appellant did not proffer any credible support for

his claims, he is not entitled to relief on his after discovered evidence and

Brady claims based on Ms. Williams’ recantation. (See PCRA Court Opinion

at 14-17).

Our review of the record supports the court’s analysis of Appellant’s

issues. See Ford, supra; Boyd, supra. Accordingly, we affirm based on the

PCRA court’s opinion.9

Order affirmed.

Date: 10/15/2025

8 The Honorable Glenn B. Bronson, who presided over Appellant’s PCRA petition, also presided over Co-defendant Flamer’s PCRA proceedings. As such, the court had the opportunity to observe Ms. Williams’ recantation testimony and determined that it was completely incredible. Additionally, there is a history of witness intimidation in this case and Ms. Williams has admitted that she has previously falsely recanted her statements under oath in this case because she was afraid for her life. On this record, we discern no error in the court’s determination that Ms. Williams’ recantation testimony does not give rise to an issue of fact warranting an evidentiary hearing.

9 We direct the parties to attach a copy of the PCRA court’s opinion to any future filings involving this appeal.

- 19 - Circulated 09/22/2025 11:12 AM

COMMON PLEAS OF COMMON COURT OF THE COURT IN THE IN PLEAS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TRIAL DIVISION CRIMINAL TRIAL CRIMINAL DIVISION

COMMONWEAL COMMONWEALTHTH OF OF CP-5 l -CR-0007713-2009 CP-51-CR-0007713-2009 PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA FIL.ED V. V. JUL 11 2024 JUL 2024 NAFEAST FLAMER NAFEAST FLAMER Appeals/Post Appeals/PostTrial Trial Judicial Records ofJudicial Officeof Office Records OPINION OPINION

BRONSON,J. BRONSON,J. July 1,1, 2024 July 2024

Flamer has Nafeast Flamer Defendant Nafeast Defendant from this appealed from has appealed Court's order this Court's ofMarch order of 8, 2024, March 8, 2024,

dismissing his second dismissing his under the petition under second petition Post Conviction the Post ReliefAct Conviction Relief For the ("PCRA"). For Act ("PCRA"). the reasons reasons

be affirmed. should be order should Court's order the Court's below, the forth below, set forth set affirmed.

I.I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

23, 2014, January 23, On January On jury trial before following a jury 2014, following this Court, defendant before this was convicted defendant was convicted of of

of first each of count each one count one degree murder first degree Pa.C.S. § 2502), (18 Pa.C.S. murder (18 2502), criminal to commit conspiracy to criminal conspiracy commit

streets of on the streets carrying a firearm on (18 Pa.C.S. § 903), carrying murder (18 murder of Philadelphia (18 Pa.C.S. § 6108), Philadelphia (18

of crime instrument of an instrument possessing an and possessing Pa.C.S. § 907). Defendant (18 Pa.C.S. crime (18 tried with Defendant was tried his uncle, with his

On March Bond was tried separately. On Hakim Bond co-defendant Hakim Marvin Flamer, while co-defendant co-defendant Marvin co-defendant

of life in sentence oflife imposed an aggregate sentence 14, 2014, the Court imposed 14, prison plus twenty-one to forty-five in prison f01iy-five

in state prison. Defendant filed post-sentence motions, which the Court incarceration in years incarceration

Comi affirmed denied on July 10, 2014. Defendant timely appealed, and the Superior Court

of sentence on defendant's judgment of defendant's not file a petition for 11, 2016. Defendant did not on May 11,

Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Defendant was represented at trial of appeal with the Pennsylvania allowance of

and on direct appeal by Bobby Hoof, Hoof, Esquire.

0116_Opinion On March 7, 2016, defendant filed a pro se petition under the PCRA ("First Petition").

On June 1, 1, 2018, defendant filed a prose amended PCRA petition. Gary Server, Esquire, was

appointed to represent defendant on December 17, 2018. On September 19, 2019, defendant

Hoof was filed a counseled amended PCRA petition, alleging, among other things, that Mr. Hoof

of appeal. With ineffective for failing to petition the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for allowance of

the agreement of of the Commonwealth, the Court reinstated defendant's defendant's right to petition for

of appeal on January 31, allowance of 31, 2020. On February 29, 2020, defendant filed a petition for

of appeal, which the Supreme Court of allowance of of Pennsylvania denied on August 12, 2020.

On August 14, 2020, defendant filed another petition under the PCRA ("Second

Petition"), which is here at issue. On September 2, 2020, Edward Foster, Esquire, entered his

appearance as privately retained counsel for defendant. On December 13, 2022, Emeka Igwe,

Esquire, entered his appearance as co-counsel for defendant.

On October 14, 2022, defendant filed an amended petition ("October 2022 Amended

Petition"). On December 22, 2022, the Commonwealth filed a motion to dismiss. On April 14,

2023, and May 22, 2023, defendant filed two supplemental amended petitions raising additional

claims. Defendant consolidated these filings into one supplemental amended petition on May

24, 2023, and on July July 2, 2023, the Commonwealth filed a response addressing defendant's

additional claims.

On September 8, 2023, defendant filed yet another supplemental amended petition

("Comprehensive Second Petition") in which he included all claims, that is, defendant's original

claims from the October 2022 Amended Petition, as well as defendant's additional claims from

his May 24, 2023 filing. On November 3, 2023, the Commonwealth filed a motion to dismiss

addressing all claims in defendant's Comprehensive Second Petition. On January 25, 2024, the

2 of its intent to dismiss defendant's Second Court issued notice, pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907, of

Petition without an evidentiary hearing ("907 Notice"). Defendant responded to the Court's Court's 907

Notice on February 14, 2024 ("907 (907 Response"). Response). On March 8, 2024, the Court dismissed

defendant's petition. defendant's

Court's dismissal of Defendant has now appealed the Court's of his Second Petition Petition on the grounds

that: 1) in dismissing defendant's Brady claim erred in 1) the PCRA court e1Ted claim regarding the email chain

between Assistant District Attorney Richard Sax and Dr. Ca1Tie Carrie Sims; 2) the PCRA court e1Ted erred

defendant's Brady claim in dismissing defendant's claim regarding the handwritten note about the decedent's

3) the PCRA Comi mother; 3) defendant's Brady claim Court erred in dismissing defendant's claim regarding former

erred in dismissing defendant's Philadelphia Police Detective James Pitts; 4) the PCRA Court e1Ted

defendant's sentencing; and 5) the PCRA Court e1Ted claim that trial counsel was ineffective at defendant's erred

in dismissing defendant's claims regarding Commonwealth witness Aisha Williams. See

of Matters Complained of Concise Statement of of on Appeal Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. l1925(b) 925(b)

of Errors") at ,r,r 1-5; ("Statement of Petition at ,r,r 21-60. For the reasons 1-5; Comprehensive Second Petition

set forth below, defendant's claims are without merit, and the Court's Court's order dismissing

defendant's Second Petition defendant's Petition should be affirmed.

I. FACTUALBACKGROUND

of this case is set forth in the Court's original Rule 1925(a) The factual background of

opinion filed in defendant's direct appeal as follows:

At trial, the Commonwealth presented the testimony of of Philadelphia Philadelphia Police Pirrone, James Dunlap, Bill Detectives James Pitts, Edward Tolliver, George Pi1Tone, Urban, James Burke, Angela Gaines, and Gregory Santamala, Philadelphia Police Jacarr Goodmond, Tony Waters, and Chris Officers Paul Hogue, Ty'myra Cox, JacalT Sherriff Marquet Parsons, Associate Medical Examiner Dr. Aaron Lai, Deputy She1Tiff Patricia Gooding, Shareem Rosen, Dr. Carrie Sims, Patricia Shareem Nelson, Jeffrey Chandler, Sabrina Taylor, Allen Moment Senior, Aisha Williams, and Malik Sutton. Defendant presented the testimony ofof Jeffrey Chandler, Sr. Viewed in the light

3 most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, the evidence established the following.

In early January, 2006, Allen Moment, Jr. was acting as peacemaker between two feuding groups of of 22"ndStreet of people in the area of Street and Pierce Street in 11 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. N.T. 1/15/14 1/15/14 at 224. Moment was the cousin of of defendant Nafeast Flamer and co-defendant Marvin Flamer. N.T. 1/15/20141/15/2014 at 220-221; N.T. 1/17/14 1/17/14 at 75. During the ongoing feud, Moment arranged to meet with defendant Nafeast Flamer and Hakim Bond in order to return a firearm that Moment had taken from defendant. N.T. 1/14/141/14/14 at 86. Abdul Taylor encountered defendant and Bond as they waited for Moment. N.T. 1/14/14 1/14/14 at 85. Shortly after Moment failed to arrive at the meeting, defendant, Bond, and Taylor were fired upon by some unknown assailant. N.T. 1/14/14 1/14/14 at 85-86. Defendant believed that Moment had set them up, and told Taylor that defendant had been talking about "getting" Moment. N.T. 1/14/14 1/14/14 at 86, 138-139. On January 18, 2006, Taylor encountered a group of of people in a lot on Ellsworth Street planning to go harm Moment. N.T. 1/14/14 1/14/14 at 83. Defendant and Bond were among this group. Id. Id. Taylor saw approximately seven guns among the individuals. N.T. 1/14/14 1/14/14 at 84.

1 Allen Moment, Jr. was also called Julio and Ribs. N.T. 1/14/14 'Allen 1/14/14 at 83; N.T. 1/15/14 1/15/14 at 220.

On January 20, 2006, at approximately 8:50 p.m., Moment was walking on Pierce nd Street, near the intersection with 22" Street, when he was approached by defendant, Bond, and two other individuals wearing dark hoodies. N.T. 1/14/14 1/14/14 at 132, 137; 1/15/14 1/15/14 at 88, 177-179, 180,183,225; 180, 183, 225; 1/16/14 1/16/14 at 118. As this group approached Moment, a friend of of Moment's, Shareem Nelson, called Moment and informed him of of the group's approach. N.T. 1/14/14 1/14/14 at 134-135; 1/15/14 1/15/14 at 225- 226; 1/16/14 1/16/14 at 19, 117, 1/17/14 1/17/14 at 71-72. Moment responded "I'm cool, they are my peoples." peoples." N.T. 1/15/14 1/15/14 at 177-179, 225; 1/16/14 1/16/14 at 19, 1/17/14 1/17/14 at 72. Once defendant and his companions reached Moment, the group opened fire on Moment, striking him approximately thirteen to fourteen times in the stomach, groin, and thigh areas. N.T. 1/14/14 1/14/14 at 156-157; 1/15/14 1/15/14 at 88, 180,225, 1/16/14 1/16/14 at 118, 1/17/14 1/17/14 at 72. Co-defendant Marvin Flamer blocked Moment's possible escape with his vehicle. N.T. 1/15/14 1/15/14 at 88, 225-226, 1/16/14 1/16/14 at 71-72.

Tony Waters, an off duty police officer who lived in the area, heard the gunshots and called 911. N.T. 1/15/14 1/15/14 at 237. Police officers and paramedics arrived on the scene shortly thereafter and transported Moment to the Hospital at the University of of Pennsylvania. N.T. 1/14/14 1/14/14 at 49; 1/15/14 1/15/14 at 55-56, 60. Doctors determined that Moment's bowel was eviscerating out of of his abdomen and he was taken to surgery immediately. N.T. 1/14/14 1/14/14 at 156-157. Over the course of of the next two and a half half years in the hospital, Moment was treated by Dr. Carrie Sims and suffered kidney failure, an open wound in his abdomen, a perforated digestive

4 heart, system, repeated infections, tracheostomy, fluid collection around his heaii, depression, and a hemorrhagic stroke. N.T. 1/14/14 1/14/14 at 49, 158-162.

In late January, 2008, Dr. Sims called a family meeting in Moment's hospital room and informed Moment that, while he had put up a good fight, he was dying and that he would not be leaving the hospital. N.T. 1/14/14 1/14/14 at 51, 51, 163-166, 1/16/14 at 59. While Moment could not move his body, Moment could 1/16/14 communicate through head gestures and labored talking. N.T. 1/14/141/14/14 at 53-54; 1/15/14 at 96-97. After this meeting, Moment asked, after some insistence from 1/15/14 his mother, to talk to a detective. N.T. 1/14/14 1/14/14 at 55. On February 4, 2008, Moment was interviewed by Philadelphia Police detectives in the presence of of his mother, Patricia Gooding, and uncle, Marquet Parsons. N.T. 1/15/14 1/15/14 at 80-81, 137. In this interview, Moment identified defendant and Bond as the individuals who shot him. N.T. 1/15/14 1/15/14 at 87. Moment further identified co-defendant Marvin Flamer as driving the get-away car that had blocked him in. N.T. 1/15/141/15/14 at 88, 225. Moment identified all three individuals in photo arrays. N.T. 1/14/14 1/14/14 1/15/14 at 87; 1/16/14 at 57, 58; 1/15/14 1/16/14 at 67. Moment informed Parsons that he did not talk to police prior to this interview because he did not want to be "called a snitch." N.T. 1/15/14 snitch." 1/15/14 at 139. On February 14, 2008, Moment provided a videotaped interview in his hospital room. N.T. 1/16/14 1/16/14 at 59-60. Moment eventually succumbed to his injuries and died on August 6, 2008. N.T. 1/14/14 1/14/14 at 47.

Following Moment's death, Abdul Taylor began cooperating with police and gave a statement on August 13, 2008. N.T. 1/14/14 1/14/14 at 80-81; 80-81; 1/15/14 1/15/14 at 69. While this matter was pending for trial, Taylor's statement was distributed as part of of discovery and was eventually seen by Derrick "Heavy" White. N.T. 1/17/14 1/17/14 at 31. Taylor informed his mother that he feared being called a snitch and told her 31. me." N.T. 1/15/14 that "they goin' kill me, they got a hit out on me." 1/15/14 at 47. While defendant was incarcerated, he received several visits from White. N.T. 1/16/141/16/14 at 158-159. White agreed to kill Taylor, as Taylor's testimony would prevent defendant from coming home. N.T. 1/17/14 1/17/14 at 30-31. On May 7, 2010, White shot Taylor in the head, killing him. N.T. 1/14/14 1/14/14 at 82, 1/15/14 1/15/14 at 73, 1/17/14 1/17/14 at 22.22 2 The Court subsequently found that Taylor's statement to the police was admissible under the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception to the hearsay rule. Pa.R.E. 804(b)(6). N.T. 3/31/11 at 11-12; 1/15/14 1/15/14 at 205-207.

Trial Court Opinion, filed November 7, 2014, at pp. 2-5.

II. DISCUSSION

of a PCRA court's grant or denial of An appellate court's review of of relief relief "is limited to

determining whether the court's findings are supported by the record and the court's order is

5 error." Commonwealth v. Green, 14 otherwise free oflegal error." 14 A.3d A.3d 114, 116 116 (Pa. Super. 2011) 2011)

(internal quotations omitted). The reviewing court "will not disturb findings that are supported

by the record." Id. record." Id.

A. Brady Claims

Defendant claims that the Commonwealth engaged in multiple Brady violations by

failing to disclose: 1) 1) an email chain between Assistant District Attorney Richard Sax and Dr.

Carrie Sims; 2) a handwritten note regarding the decedent's decedent's mother, Patricia Patricia Gooding; and 3)

information that former Philadelphia Police Detective James Pitts was on a "no call" list at the

time of of defendant's of Errors at ilil defendant's trial. Statement of 1-3; Comprehensive Second Petition at ilil \ 1-3; \21- 21-

39.

Under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S 83 (1963), exculpatory evidence not disclosed to the

defense will give rise to a due process violation and will require a new trial if if the exculpatory

evidence is "material" either to guilt or punishment. 373 U.S. at 87; see also Pa.R.Crim.P.

573(B)(l)(a) (specifying, as mandatory discovery, "[a]ny evidence favorable to the accused that

is material either to guilt or to punishment, and is within the possession or control of of the attorney

for the Commonwealth"). If the police possess evidence that is favorable to the defense, then the

Commonwealth is deemed to be responsible for its disclosure even if if it is solely in in the possession

of the police. See Commonwealth v. Lambert, 884 A.2d 848, 854 (Pa. 2005). of

Therefore, to establish a Brady violation, defendant must demonstrate that: "(1) "(1) the

prosecution concealed evidence; (2) which was either exculpatory evidence or impeachment

concealment." Commonwealth v. evidence favorable to him; and (3) he was prejudiced by the concealment."

Simpson, Simpson, 66 A.3d A.3d 253, 264 (Pa. 2013). In order to establish prejudice, defendant "must

demonstrate a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the

6 of the proceeding would have been different. Id. A reasonable probability for these result of

purposes is one which undermines confidence in the outcome of trial." Id. (internal of the trial."

quotations and citations omitted). Moreover, "Brady evidence may not be cumulative of of other

evidence, cannot have been equally available to the defense, and cannot have been discoverable

through the exercise of diligence." Id. (internal citations omitted). of reasonable diligence."

1. Email Chain

Defendant claims that the Commonwealth committed a Brady violation by failing to

disclose emails that were sent between ADA Richard Sax and Dr. Carrie Sims regarding the

condition of Allen Moment at the time he made statements identifying who shot him. See condition of

of Errors at ,r\] 1; Statement of 1; Comprehensive Second Petition at ,r,r \ 21-26; October 2022 Amended

Petition, Exhibit A. Defendant asserts that in the emails, ADA Sax made it "abundantly clear to

... stating that when [Mr. Moment] was Dr. Sims that he need[ed] some documentation ...

... Mr. Moment knew or believed he was dying, in order to allow interviewed ... allow the interview interview to

be used as a dying declaration." Petition at ,r,r declaration." Comprehensive Second Petition 221-23. Defendant argues that Dr. Sims produced an addendum to this effect to "suit the needs of of ADA Sax in order to

allow the evidence to be admitted as a dying declaration," allow declaration," and that, had the emails been produced

during pre-trial discovery, they could have been used by the defense "as impeachment evidence

qualification of regarding the qualification of the video recorded 'interview' of of the decedent as a dying

declaration." Comprehensive Second Petition at ,r,r24, declaration." of Errors at ,r 1. 24, 26; Statement of 1. This

claim is meritless.

of Pennsylvania Hospital for about two and Dr. Sims treated Mr. Moment at University of

half years before he eventually succumbed to the injuries he sustained in the shooting. N.T. half

1/14/14 at 49, 157-162. In late January 2008, Dr. Sims called a "family meeting" in Mr. 1/14/14

7 Moment's hospital room and informed Mr. Moment that he was dying and that he would not be

leaving the hospital. Id. at 51-52, 163-166. After the meeting, Mr. Moment asked to talk to a

detective, and on February 4, 2008, Philadelphia police detectives interviewed Mr. Moment in

the hospital. Id. at 55; N.T. 1/15/14 1/15/14 at 80-81, 136-138. In this interview, Mr. Moment identified

defendant as one of of the individuals who shot him. N.T. 1/14/14 1/14/14 at 56-57; N.T. 1/15/14 1/15/14 at 87;

N.T. 1/16/14 1/16/14 at 59-64. Ten days later, on February 14, 2008, Mr. Moment provided a videotaped th interview in his hospital room to detectives, memorializing his February 4" identification of of

defendant on video. N.T. 1/16/14 1/16/14 at 59-62. Defendant's Defendant's statements were deemed admissible

pursuant to the dying declaration exception, Pa.R.E. 804(b)(2), to the rule against hearsay .11

Contrary to defendant's assertion that the email chain between ADA Sax and Dr. Sims

constituted Brady material, the email chain clearly establishes that neither ADA Sax's Sax's request,

nor Dr. Sims' Sims' response, would have been helpful to the defense at trial. See October 2022

Amended Petition, Exhibit A. In the email chain, ADA Sax simply asked Dr. Sims to confom confirm in

a writing what she had already told ADA Sax regarding Mr. Moment's health and her

"if true." Id. In response, Dr. Sims stated conversations with Mr. Moment, and to only do so "if

that she would happily include an addendum to Mr. Moment's medical records regarding her

conversations because she was "certain [she] had multiple conversations" with Mr. Moment and

his family regarding Mr. Moment's medical condition. Id. Thus, the email chain would not have

impeached Dr. Sims' Sims' credibility, or the credibility of of Dr. Sims' Sims' addendum, and therefore is not

Brady material. See Simpson, Simpson, 66 A.3d at 264. No relief relief is due.

1 ' The Honorable Gwendolyn Bright, to whom this case was originally assigned, ruled in limine that defendant's statements were admissible as dying declarations pursuant to Pa.R.E. 804(b)(2).

8 2. Handwritten Note

Defendant claims the Court erred in dismissing his claim that the Commonwealth

committed a Brady violation by failing to disclose a handwritten note prior to trial which

indicated that Mr. Moment's mother, Patricia Gooding, contacted detectives on Mr. Moment's

of Errors at ,r] 2; Comprehensive Second Petition at ,r,r behalf. See Statement of \] 27-32; October

2022 Amended Petition, Exhibit C. The note stated that Mr. Moment wanted to speak to

detectives, but that Ms. Gooding did not want anyone to speak to Mr. Moment outside of of her

presence. See October 2022 Amended Petition, Exhibit C. Defendant argues that because Mr.

Moment was an adult, Ms. Gooding' s insistence that she be present during his interviews is

"troubling," "troubling," and that had this note been disclosed to the defendant, trial counsel could have used

of Mr. Moment's statements. See Statement ofEnors at ,r 2; the note to attack the independence of

Comprehensive Second Petition at ,r,r y 27-31. This argument is frivolous. The Commonwealth offered the handwritten note into

evidence at trial, and defense counsel highlighted the contents of of note during the cross-

examination of of Detective Bill Urban. See N.T. 1/16/14 1/16/14 at 57-58, 83; N.T.1/17/14 N.T.1/17/14 at 63-64;

Commonwealth Exhibit C-25 (Note from Patricia Gooding). Defendant never objected to the

note's admission nor indicated to the Court at trial that the note had not been passed timely in

discovery. Defendant is not entitled to relief relief under Brady since the record establishes that the

Commonwealth did not conceal the note and that it was presented to the jury during the trial.

3. Detective Pitts

Defendant alleges that former Philadelphia Police Detective James Pitts "threatened,

intimidated, and physically abused him during the interrogation process." process." Comprehensive

Second Petition at ,r 34. As a result, defendant claims that the Commonwealth violated Brady by

9 not disclosing that Detective Pitts was on the Commonwealth's "no-call" list at the time of of

of En-ors at ,r 3; Comprehensive Second Petition at ,r,r333-39. defendant's trial. See Statement of 3-39.

This claim is without merit. While Detective Pitts did testify at defendant's trial, he only

provided testimony regarding the statement made by Abdul Taylor, see N.T. 1/14/14 1/14/14 at 74-99, as

well as testimony regarding the writings seized from defendant's jail cell that implicated

defendant in the murder of of Mr. Taylor. See N.T. 1/16/14 1/16/14 at 136-159. Detective Pitts never

testified as to any statement made by defendant, and no statement made by defendant surfaced at

trial. Additionally, no witnesses in defendant's case claimed to have been coerced by Detective

Pitts.

Moreover, there was compelling evidence of of defendant's guilt presented at trial that was

unconnected to Detective Pitts. This was summarized as follows by this Court in its opinion

regarding the meritless weight of of the evidence claim defendant made on direct appeal:

Shareem Nelson, Jeffrey Chandler, Jr., and Aisha Williams each testified that they witnessed multiple individuals in dark hoodies approach Moment at the corner of of nd 22" Street, where they shot Moment multiple times in the abdomen, pelvis, and upper thighs. N.T. 1/14/14 1/14/14 at 113-115, 134-136, 156-157; 1/15/14 1/15/14 at 178-180. Aisha Williams, who knew defendant all her life, identified defendant as one of of those individuals. N.T. 1/15/14 1/15/14 at 180-181. Just prior to the shooting, after Nelson telephoned Moment to warn him that four men in hoodies were "running toward [him]," Moment told Nelson, "I'm cool, they are my peoples." peoples." N.T. 1/16/14 1/16/14 at 19. While hospitalized, Moment stated repeatedly that he had been shot by his cousins, without identifying them by name. N.T. 1/14/14 1/14/14 at 51; 1/15/14 1/15/14 at 139. Later on, when he believed he was about to die as a result of of the extensive and lingering wounds which he sustained, Moment identified defendant and Bond as the shooters and Marvin Flamer as the driver of of the get-away car. N.T. 1/14/14 1/14/14 at 51, 51, 55-58; 1/15/14 1/15/14 at 86-88; 1/16/14 1/16/14 at 59, 67. When Taylor's statement to the police implicating defendant was distributed as discovery, after repeated phone calls with defendant, Derrick "Heavy" White killed Taylor "in order to get [defendant] ... ... home." N.T. 1/15/14 1/15/14 at 206-207; 1/17/14 1/17/14 at 31, 31, 57-59.

Trial Court Opinion, filed November 7, 2014, at pp. 5-6. Accordingly, evidence that Detective

Pitts was on the Commonwealth's Commonwealth's "no-call" list would not be likely compel a different verdict in

10 Commonwealth's failure to disclose the evidence did not violate Brady. this case. Therefore, the Commonwealth's

See Brady, Brady, 373 U.S. at 87; Simpson, 66 A.3d A.3d at 264. No relief relief is due.

of Trial Counsel at Sentencing B. Ineffective Assistance of

Court erred in dismissing his claim Defendant alleges that this Comi claim that trial counsel, Bobby

Hoof, Esquire, rendered ineffective assistance of Hoof, defendant's sentencing hearing. See of counsel at defendant's

of Errors at ,r Statement of ] 4; Comprehensive Second Petition at ,r,r40-57. 40-57. Defendant claims that

Hoof was ineffective for failing to present adequate mitigation evidence at defendant's Mr. Hoof

sentencing hearing and for mischaracterizing defendant's childhood, which led the Comito

impose a life sentence.?2 See Statement of at,r,r440- of Errors at ,r] 4; Comprehensive Second Petition at

defendant's role in 57. Defendant also argues that the Court should not have considered defendant's

conspiring to murder a witness in its evaluation of of Errors at ,r 4. of defendant's claim. Statement of

Defendant's claim Defendant's claim is without merit.

Under Pennsylvania law, counsel is presumed to be effective and the burden to prove

otherwise lies with the petitioner. Commonwealth v. Basemore, 744 A.2d 717, 728 (Pa. 2000),

n.10 (citing Commonwealth v. n.10 v. Copenhefer, 719 719 A.2d 242,250 (Pa. 1998)). To obtain collateral

relief based on the ineffective assistance of relief of counsel, a petitioner must show show that counsel's

representation fell below of advocacy and that as a result thereof, below accepted standards of thereof, the

petitioner was prejudiced. Strickland Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984). In

Pennsylvania, the Strickland standard is interpreted as requiring proof claim (1) the claim proof that: (1)

claim had arguable merit; (2) counsel's actions lacked any underlying the ineffectiveness claim

of counsel caused the petitioner prejudice. reasonable basis; and (3) the ineffectiveness of

Commonwealth v. v. Miller, 987 A.2d 638, 648 (Pa. 2009); Commonwealth v. Pierce, 527 A.2d

2 Although defendant was convicted of of first degree murder, because he was a juvenile at the time of of the homicide he was eligible for a non-life sentence pursuant to Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) and Montgomery Montgome1y v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190 (2016).

11 973,975 (Pa. 1987). To satisfy of the test, the petitioner must prove that, but for satisfy the third prong of

counsel's error, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of of the proceeding would have

Sneed, 899 A.2d 1067, 1084 (Pa. 2006) (citing Strickland, 466 been different. Commonwealth v. Sneed,

of the three prongs cannot be met, then U.S. at 694). If the PCRA court determines that any one of

the court need not hold an evidentiary hearing as such a hearing would serve no purpose.

Commonwealth v. Jones, 942 A.2d 903, 906 (Pa. Super. 2008).

Here, defendant premises his claim on mitigating evidence developed several years after

2019 the sentencing hearing by psychologist Dr. Anna Lawler, who submitted a September 17, 2019

of defendant. Comprehensive Second Petition mental health evaluation of at $ 46. He contends Petition at,

Hoof seriously prejudiced the defendant when he that Dr. Lawler' s report proves that Mr. Hoof

mischaracterized defendant's childhood at the sentencing hearing. See Comprehensive Second

Petition at,, at \ 40-57. In particular, defendant claims that Mr. Hoofrepresented Hoof represented to the Court that

defendant had a stable upbringing, when in fact, he had a troubled upbringing. Id. Defendant

also argues that numerous mitigating factors revealed in Dr. Lawler' s report should have been

of sentencing by competent counsel. See uncovered and presented to the Court at the time of

Comprehensive Second Petition at, at 40-46 & Exhibit B.

Defendant's claim of Defendant's of ineffective assistance of of counsel fails because the sentence of of the

Court would not have changed even if if the mitigating factors in Dr. Lawler' s report had been

presented at the time of of sentencing. In rejecting defendant's claim on direct appeal that the

of the Court was excessive, the Court analyzed the relevant factors as follows: sentence of

Because defendant was seventeen years old at the time of of the murder here at issue, his sentence on the murder charge was governed by 18 18 Pa.C.S. § 1102.1. 1102.1. For first degree murder, section 1102.1 (a)(l) (a)(l) provides that juveniles over the age of 15 of 15 shall be sentenced either to a term of of imprisonment having a mandatory minimum of of 35 years to life, or to life imprisonment without parole. In determining the appropriate sentence, the sentencing comi court is required to

12 12 consider, and to make findings regarding, numerous factors regarding the impact of the offense on the victim and the community, the safety of of of the community, the nature and circumstances ofof the offense, the degree of of defendant's culpability, and numerous age-related characteristics ofof the defendant, which are 18 Pa.C.S. § 1102.l(d). delineated in the statute. 18

Here, the Court sentenced defendant to life in prison plus a consecutive twenty- one to fo1iy-five forty-five years incarceration. At the sentencing hearing, the Comi Court explicitly considered, and made findings regarding, all of of the sentencing factors set forth in section 1102. l(d). N.T. 3/14/14 3/14/14 at 17-21. 17-21. Imp01iant Important factors included the very unusual suffering of of the victim, who lived for an extended period of of time suffering horribly before he succumbed to his injuries. N.T. 3/14/14 3/14/14 at 18. Defendant, in the view of of the Comi, Court, posed a grave threat to the safety of of the public and had the highest degree of of culpability in this case as he was one of of the individuals who shot Moment. N.T. 3/14/143/14/14 at 18-19. Defendant's Defendant's age at the of the murder was seventeen, which was near the top of time of of the applicable sentencing age range. N. T. 3/14/14 3/14/14 at 19. Defendant demonstrated a high degree ofof criminal sophistication in this matter, as he worked to eliminate a witness in this matter, Abdul Taylor. N.T. 3/14/14 3/14/14 at 19-20. Defendant also had of nine misconduct charges while in prison, and secured the a significant history of murder ofof a witness while incarcerated. N. T. 3/14/14 3/14/14 at 20. After careful consideration ofof the presentence report and all ofof the mitigating evidence presented by the defense, the Court concluded that this was an "unusual case," and that defendant was incapable ofrehabilitation. N.T. 3/14/143/14/14 at 16-21. 16-21. The record fully supported that conclusion and justified justified the imposition ofof a sentence of life without parole. of

Trial Court Opinion, filed November 7, 2014, at pp. 18-19.

Hoof was ineffective at sentencing, the PCRA In analyzing defendant's claim that Mr. Hoof

of the evidence available at the time of court reviewed and considered all of of the sentencing hearing,

along with all of of the newly developed mitigating evidence proffered by defendant in the Second

Petition. See 907 Notice at ,r 4. The Comi Court confidently concluded that the additional mitigating

of the Court to impose a life sentence. Id. This evidence would not have changed the decision of

was an extraordinary case which included prolonged and unimaginable suffering of of the victim victim

and the killing of of a witness. Defendant was not prejudiced at the hearing by Mr. Hoofs failure

to uncover and present to the Comi Court the mitigating evidence presented in Dr. Lawlor's report.

13 13 Court improperly considered Moreover, there is no support for defendant's claim that the Comi

that defendant conspired to kill a witness to the murder at issue in the case. The relevance and

of this evidence was ruled on by the Superior Comi the admissibility of Court in granting the

of a trial court order granting defendant's motion in limine to exclude Commonwealth's appeal of

of the evidence to prove the conspiracy. Commonwealth v. Flamer, much of A.3d 82, 86-89.33 Flamer, 53 A.3d

of defendant's The Commonwealth proved the conspiracy at trial with compelling evidence of

paiiicular, as stated above, the Commonwealth proved that defendant received involvement. In particular,

several visits from Denick White before Mr. White shot the witness, Abdul Taylor, in the head,

killing him. N.T. 1/14/14 1/14/14 at 82; 1/15/14 1/15/14 at 73; 1/16/14 1/16/14 at 158-159; 1/17/14 1/17/14 at 22. Before the

killing, Mr. Taylor, who had been cooperating with police, informed his mother that there was a

"hit out" on him as a result of "hit of his cooperation cooperation against defendant and his codefendant, Marvin

Flamer. N.T. 1/15/14 1/15/14 at 47. Mr. White was heard saying that he was going to kill Mr. Taylor "in

order to get Nafeast and them home." home." N.T. 1/17/2014 1/17/2014 at 31.

Accordingly, there was compelling evidence that this was an extraordinary case that fully

justified a life sentence notwithstanding anything submitted by Dr. Lawlor. Therefore, defendant

did not suffer prejudice from Mr. Hoofs performance at sentencing, and no relief relief is due. See

Miller, 987 A.2d at 648.

C. Aisha Williams Claims

erred in dismissing his claims regarding Commonwealth Defendant alleges that the Court ened

witness Aisha Williams. Statement ofEnors at ,i 5. In his Comprehensive Second Petition,

defendant premised these claims entirely on testimony given by Ms. Williams at an evidentiary

hearing regarding the PCRA petition filed by defendant's uncle and codefendant, Marvin Flamer.

Comprehensive Second Petition at ,i,i558-60. 8-60. In particular, defendant claimed that Ms. Williams' Williams'

3 of this case to the undersigned judge. The ruling in limine was made prior to the assignment of

14 14 of Marvin Flamer, in which she recanted her trial testimony testimony at the evidentiary hearing of

inculpating defendant, constitutes after-discovered evidence that entitles defendant to relief. Id.

Williams' contention at the hearing that she was In addition, defendant claimed that Ms. Williams'

compensated by the District Attorney's Office in exchange for her trial testimony, which had not

been disclosed by the Commonwealth, established a Brady violation. Id. The PCRA court

rejected these claims based on Ms. Williams complete lack of of credibility at the evidentiary

erred in rejecting the claims without an hearing. Defendant now contends that the PCRA court e1Ted

of defendant. Statement of additional evidentiary hearing specifically directed to the claims of of

Errors at ,r 5.

of his claims apart Defendant, however, proffered no evidence whatsoever in support of

of Ms. Williams at the evidentiary hearing of from the testimony of of Marvin Flamer. Because that

of fact that would entitle testimony was completely incredible, it did not give rise to an issue of

defendant to an evidentiary hearing.

At defendant's trial, Ms. Williams testified that she had known defendant for a long time

because they grew up in the same neighborhood, and that she recognized defendant as one of of the

men who walked up behind Mr. Moment and shot him. N.T. 1/15/14 1/15/14 at 176-177, 180-181, 180-181, 188.

Ms. Williams further testified that she gave complete and honest statements regarding the

shooting to police in March 2008 and August 2008, and that she was hesitant to talk to police

throughout the investigation and prosecution of of Mr. Moment's Moment's murder because she was "scared

for [her] life" and "felt bad" because defendants were from the same neighborhood as her. Id. at

182-88; see Commonwealth Exhibit C-15 (Williams March 2008 Statement) & Commonwealth

C-16 (Williams August 2008 Statement). Ms. Williams also stated that she recanted Exhibit C-16

three times prior to trial, at preliminary hearings and at Hakim Bond's trial, because she did not

15 15 want to be deemed a snitch. N.T. 1/15/14 1/15/14 at 187-188. Prior to Ms. Williams' testimony at

defendant's trial, a hearing was held due to Ms. Williams' request that the comiroom courtroom be cleared

during her testimony. See N.T. 1/15/14 1/15/14 at 162-171. 162-171. During that hearing, Ms. Williams stated

she "[couldn't] go back to South Philly" where she and the defendants grew up, and that the

defendants "got ways of of having people do things." N.T. 1/15/14 1/15/14 at 167-168. At defendant's

trial, Ms. Williams emphatically expressed her fear of of defendants to the Court, and at no time did

she express to the Comi Court any fear of of police. See N.T. 1/15/14 1/15/14 at 162-171.

However, Ms. Williams testified at Marvin Flamer's Flamer's evidentiary hearing, almost nine

years after defendant's trial, that she never gave a statement to police. See Marvin Flamer

Evidentiary Hearing Notes of "M. Flamer Evidentiary of Testimony 12/9/22 at 66, 78 (hereafter, "M.

Hearing Notes").44 She stated that police concocted the March 2008 statement, that she did not

remember giving the August 2008 statement, and that she never saw defendant when Mr.

Moment was shot. M. Flamer Evidentiary Hearing Notes 12/9/22 at 66-70, 79-80, 88-89; M.

Flamer Evidentiary Hearing Notes 12/14/22 at 28. Ms. Williams testified that she was never

afraid of of Marvin Flamer or defendant, and was actually always afraid of of the police. M. Flamer

Evidentiary Hearing Notes 12/9/22 at 70, 76. Additionally, Ms. Williams contradicted herself herself

multiple times throughout the evidentiary hearing, including by testifying that she never signed

any pages of of the March 2008 statement, and then later admitting she had signed all but one page.

M. Flamer Evidentiary Hearing N.T. 12/9/22 at 79-87. Ms. Williams further claimed at the

evidentiary hearing that she had testified at defendant's trial that she had "never seen [Marvin],"

when the notes of of testimony from trial clearly established that was untrue. See M. Flamer

Evidentiary Hearing N.T. 12/14/22 at 38-39.

4 Co-defendant Marvin Flamer's Flamer's case is at docket number CP-5 l-CR-0007716-2009. The evidentiary hearing for his PCRA petition was held on December 9, and December 14, 2022.

16 16 As to the alleged payments to Ms. Williams, she testified at the evidentiary hearing for

Marvin Flamer that she had received a $5,000 check in exchange for her testimony at

defendant's trial, and that she signed paperwork regarding the agreement. Id. at 63. However, defendant's

Ms. Williams was unable to recall the specifics of of who allegedly paid her in exchange for her

of the paperwork she allegedly signed or the check that she testimony, and had no record of

Attorney's office. See M. Flamer Evidentiary Hearing N.T. allegedly received from the District Attorney's

12/9/22 at 99-103.

of defendant's after discovered Accordingly, the only evidence submitted in support of

evidence and Brady claims was the incredible, often demonstrably false, and inherently

of Ms. Williams at the Marvin Flamer evidentiary contradictory, evidentiary hearing testimony of

hearing. Having failed to proffer any other evidence in support of of these claims, defendant was

not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. No relief relief is due.

CONCLUSION V. CONCLUSION

defendant's Second Petition For all the foregoing reasons, the Court's order dismissing defendant's

should be affomed. affirmed.

BY THE COURT: BY

GLENN B. BRONSON, J

17 17 Commonwealth v. Nafeast Flamer CP-51-CR-0007713-2009 Type of of Order: Opinion

PROOF OF SERVICE

I hereby ce1tify certify that I am this day serving the foregoing Court Order upon the person(s), and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of of Pa.R.Crim.P.114:

Assistant District Attorney: Lawrence Goode, Esquire Supervisor, Appeals Unit Office of of the District Attorney Three South Penn Square Philadelphia, PA 19107-3499

Type of of Service: ( ) Personal ( ) First Class Mail (X) Other, please specify: Interoffice Mail

Defense Counsel:

Edward J. Foster, Esquire Emeka Igwe, Esquire 1520 Locust Street, Suite 700 1500 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1900 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Philadelphia, PA 19102

Type of of Service: ( ) Personal (X) First Class Mail ( ) Other, please specify:

Additional Party: Letitia Santarelli, Esquire Office of of the Prothonotary - Superior Superior Court 530 530 Walnut Street - Suite 315 315 Philadelphia, PA 19106

Type of of Service () Personal (X) First Class Mail() () Mail() Other, please specify:

Dated: July 1, 2024

Law Clerk to Hon. Glenn B. Bronson