Com. v. Hawkins, Q.

Opinion

J-S12002-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA :

v. :

: :

QUYDEEM HAWKINS :

:

Appellant : No. 2089 EDA 2024

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered June 26, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No: CP-51-CR-0002404-2014

BEFORE: STABILE, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 8, 2025

Appellant, Quydeem Hawkins, who is serving a sentence of life without

parole for first degree murder and concurrent terms of imprisonment for other

offenses, appeals from an order denying his petition for relief under the Post

Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.

The PCRA court accurately recounted the evidence against Appellant as

follows:

[A]t at approximately three o'clock in the afternoon of October 21, 2013, [Appellant] and another male snuck around the corner of Ditman and Granite Streets in Philadelphia and began firing at a group of males congregated around the steps of 5121 Ditman Street, resulting in the murder of Khaalid Boyd. Andre Richardson, Domonte Dark, and Kelsey Dark, friends of the deceased, witnessed the shooting. Each gave statements to the police following the shooting, which identified [Appellant], “Quiz” as the gunman.

Andre Richardson testified that on October 21, 2013, at approximately 3:00 in the afternoon, he was outside of 5123 Ditman Street with several friends, including Khaalid Boyd and

J-S12002-25

Kelsey Dark, when [Appellant], wearing a red hoodie, and an unknown male ran up and started shooting at them. (N.T. 2-10- 15, pp. 55-63). Richardson testified that he ran when the shots were fired but returned later to see if Khaalid Boyd was alright. Richardson did not tell the officers at the scene what he had observed as it was his intention to exact retribution for the shooting himself. (N.T. 2-10-15, pp. 65-68).

Domonte Dark’s testimony established that he heard gunshots and that Quiz “had on a red hoody and he was shooting at us.” (N.T. 2-10-15, pp. 130-131, 142). Dark further stated that “after they finished shooting, they got back into the Honda Accord. Quiz pointed at me and skid off, then he hit a black Ford. I think he was coming after me.” (N.T. 2-10-15, p. 144). Domonte believed that “it was over some he say/she say stuff over the block. The problem was between me and him. Someone told him that I was out to kill him.” (N.T. 2-10-15, p. 143).

Kelsey Dark testified that he was outside of 5121 Ditman Street on October 21, 2013, when he heard shots and ran. (N.T. 2-10- 15, p. 166). At the time he was living next door at 5123 Ditman Street. (N.T. 2-10-15, p. 168). Kelsey Dark was interviewed by the police regarding this incident on October 31, 2013, at which time he stated that his brother, Domonte Dark, “got shot in the leg a couple days ago,” in response to whether there were any recent threats made towards him or his brother. (N.T. 2-10-15, p. 177). Detective Charles Grebloski, who took the interview of Kelsey Dark, also testified at trial regarding Kelsey Dark’s statements. (N.T. 2-11-15, pp. 46-60).

Kelly Myhausuk, a school psychologist who works at Hardy Middle School, located on Torresdale Avenue, near the 5100 block of Ditman Street, testified as well. (N.T. 2-11-15, pp. 4-5). Ms. Myhausuk testified that on October 21, 2013, she left the school around 3:30 p.m. driving her car at the intersection of Ditman and Granite Streets. (N.T. 2-11-15, pp. 5-6). While at the junction, she saw “two young African American males coming down Granite, hugging the side of the building. I observed them peeking around the corner looking up and down Ditman, which I kind of thought was suspicious.” (N.T. 2-11-15, p. 7). “The male closest to me was in a red hoody.” (N.T. 2-11-15, pp. 8-9). She observed the man in the red hoodie take out a gun, and then both men proceed into the middle of Ditman Street. (N.T. 2-11-15, pp. 8-12). Ms. Myhausuk testified that she had seen a crowd of people

3

J-S12002-25

congregated outside of the third or fourth house from the corner. (N.T. 2-I1-15, p. 12).

When Ms. Myhausuk looked up after the shooting had stopped, she started to proceed through the intersection, but was “hit by a car traveling on Granite,” which pushed her car “up onto the sidewalk and [the] air bags deployed.” (N.T. 2-11-15, p. 9). She described the car that hit her as a gold, older model sedan, and the passengers in that car to be the same men that had just fired the shots. (N.T. 2-11-15, p. 15). She stated, " I believe the male in the red hoody was driving the car and the male with the white tee shirt was a passenger." (N.T. 2-11-15, p. 15).

There was further evidence provided at trial that a gold Honda was left at the scene, which was processed for evidence, and a video was recovered from a corner store that showed people fleeing the area. (N.T. 2-11-15, pp. 123-125).

PCRA Court Opinion, 6/18/24, at 4-6.1

On November 17, 2013, Appellant was charged with murder, attempted

murder, conspiracy, firearms not to be carried without a license, recklessly

endangering another person, aggravated assault, and possessing an

instrument of crime. On February 13, 2015, following a jury trial, Appellant

was convicted on all charges. Subsequently, the court imposed sentence.

Appellant timely appealed to this Court, which affirmed his judgment of

sentence, and our Supreme Court denied his petition for allowance of appeal.

The PCRA court described the PCRA proceedings as follows:

[Appellant] filed his PCRA petition on July 14, 2017. Counsel was appointed who filed a Finley2 letter. A notice of intent to dismiss was sent to all parties on January 31, 2020, following which on

____________________________________________

1 The PCRA court’s opinion is appended to this memorandum.

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

4

J-S12002-25

March 2, 2020, the petition was dismissed. [Appellant] timely appealed. On May 26, 2020, an order pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b) was sent to [Appellant] requiring [him] to provide a statement of matters complained of on appeal within twenty-one days. Appellant failed to respond and after waiting nearly three months for the 1925(b) statement, this court filed an opinion recommending the dismissal of [Appellant]’s appeal.

On December 16, 2020, an Order was entered by the Superior Court remanding the matter for a determination of whether counsel had abandoned [Appellant]. This court responded that counsel had not abandoned [Appellant] on February 9, 2021, and entered an order allowing counsel to withdraw. [Appellant] then filed a subsequent pro se PCRA on February 23, 2021, with a request for extension of time on March 3rd of that year. On the thirty-first of that month, [Appellant] filed a motion for discovery, and on April 26, 2021, the Superior Court remanded again and ordered this court to provide [Appellant] with copies of any requested transcripts and documents that this court deemed necessary and relevant to allow for a complete and judicious assessment of the issues raised on appeal. On June 22, 2021, this court provided all transcripts and discovery to [Appellant]. [Appellant] did not respond, and five months later a notice of intent to dismiss pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure was served on all the parties. Again, having received no response from [Appellant], the petition was dismissed on December 13, 2021.

[On] May 20, 2022, the Superior Court remanded the matter for [Appellant] to file a response to the [notice of intent to dismiss] and/or the 1925(b) order. This court set up a video conference with [Appellant] for June 9, 2022, wherein [Appellant] claimed to have never received the discovery and transcripts this court sent, certified mail, return receipt requested on July 9, 2021. Seven days later, this court again sent the transcripts and discovery, again certified mail, return receipt requested to [Appellant]. On August 9, 2022, [Appellant] then requested photographs of the firearms be provided, which this court ordered the Commonwealth to provide [Appellant]. Pursuant to the directive of the Superior Court, the matter was subsequently continued for [Appellant] to respond to either a [notice of intent to dismiss] or file a 1925(b) statement on October 11, 2022; December 12, 2022; March 15, 2023; June 14, 2023; October 5, 2023; January 4, 2024; and April

5

J-S12002-25

4, 2024, at which time a video hearing was scheduled for May 3, 2024. At that hearing, [Appellant] was ordered to file a response. On May 17, [Appellant] filed his response to both the [notice of intent to dismiss] and 1925(b) orders . . .

PCRA Court Opinion, 6/18/24, at 2-3. On June 20, 2024, the PCRA court

entered an opinion finding that Appellant’s PCRA petition should be dismissed.

On June 26, 2024, the court entered an order dismissing Appellant’s PCRA

petition. Appellant timely appealed to this Court. Although the PCRA court

did not file an opinion subsequent to Appellant’s appeal, its June 20, 2024

opinion satisfactorily addresses the issues raised in this appeal.

Appellant raises the following issues in his pro se appeal, which we

paraphrase for purposes of clarity:

1) the prosecutor withheld exculpatory evidence by agreeing with defense counsel that the jury should not see certain property receipts during deliberation;

2) the prosecutor violated the rules of evidence;

3) the prosecutor committed perjury and misled the jury when describing a witness’s testimony during the Commonwealth's closing argument;

4) trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the prosecutor’s alleged misconduct;

5) the evidence was insufficient to convict and instead established his actual innocence;

6) the trial court erred for not correcting the other alleged errors;

7) there was police misconduct with respect to a photo identification;

8) Appellant was a victim of misidentification; and

6

J-S12002-25

9) one of the Commonwealth's witnesses was not credible.

Appellant’s Brief at 3.

“On appeal from the denial of PCRA relief, our standard of review

requires us to determine whether the ruling of the PCRA court is supported by

the record and free of legal error.” Commonwealth v. Widgins, 29 A.3d

816, 819 (Pa. Super. 2011). As this Court has explained:

We review an order dismissing a petition under the PCRA in the light most favorable to the prevailing party at the PCRA level. This review is limited to the findings of the PCRA court and the evidence of record. We will not disturb a PCRA court’s ruling if it is supported by evidence of record and is free of legal error. This Court may affirm a PCRA court’s decision on any grounds if the record supports it. Further, we grant great deference to the factual findings of the PCRA court and will not disturb those findings unless they have no support in the record. However, we afford no such deference to its legal conclusions. Where the petitioner raises questions of law, our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review plenary.

Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190, 1194 (Pa. Super. 2012).

Having carefully reviewed the record, the relevant case law, and the

parties’ briefs, we conclude that the PCRA court’s opinion fully and

satisfactorily addresses each of the issues raised by Appellant. In brief, the

PCRA court correctly resolved each issue as follows: (1) the prosecutor did not

withhold alleged exculpatory evidence from the jury, because defense counsel,

not the prosecutor, requested that the jury not see certain pieces of evidence

during deliberations; (2) Appellant waived his claim that the prosecutor

committed “perjury” during closing arguments by failing to identify the

manner in which she perjured herself, and in any event, the prosecutor’s

7

J-S12002-25

closing arguments were a fair response to defense counsel’s closing argument;

(3) Appellant waived his claims that the prosecutor confused the jury,

harbored a “malicious motive,” and violated rules of evidence by failing to

identify the alleged confusing acts, malicious motive, or rules of evidence; (4)

Appellant’s claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel repeat the same

vague and baseless claims of prosecutorial misconduct addressed above; (5)

Appellant waived his claim that the court gave improper instructions to the

jury by failing to identify the alleged improper instructions; (6) Appellant

waived his claim of ineffective assistance of PCRA counsel by failing to identify

the manner in which PCRA counsel was ineffective; (7) Appellant waived his

claim that he was misidentified by failing to develop this argument, relying

instead on the vague assertion that “scientific research study after study

revealed a troubling lack of reliability in eyewitness identifications, from social

science research to the view of actual police lineups, from laboratory

experiments to DNA exonerations and finger print lifting”; (8) Appellant

waived his claim that the police engaged in misconduct by “showing [his]

picture singly to a witness [in violation of] the [d]efendant’s 14 th Amendment

[rights]," because Appellant failed to identify the person whom the police

showed the single picture and the testimony specifying this allegedly conduct;

(9) Appellant waived his claim that the police falsified documents by failing to

identify the alleged falsified documents; (10) Appellant waived his claim that

the police convinced Andre Richardson to frame him for the murder by failing

8

J-S12002-25

to identify any evidence in support of this claim; (11) the evidence was

sufficient to sustain his murder conviction; and (12) Appellant’s murder

conviction was not against the weight of the evidence. PCRA Court Opinion,

6/18/24, at 6-23.

Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the PCRA court’s opinion and

conclude that the PCRA court properly denied relief. The parties are directed

to attach a copy of the PCRA court’s opinion in the event of further

proceedings.

Order affirmed. Application to add alleged after discovered evidence to

brief denied. Application for evidentiary hearing denied. Application to

preclude new trial based on double jeopardy denied.

Date: 9/8/2025

Circulated 05/30/2025 12:01 12-01 PM

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

COMMONWEALTH COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL CRIMINAL. TRIAL DIVISION

V. 1177 EDA 2020

QUYDEEM HAWKINS QUYDEEM CP-51-CR-0002404-2014

Received

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION

JUN 2

2002024

O'KEEFE, J.

Office of Judicial Records Oliice

Appeals/Post Trial

Quydeem Hawkins Quydeem appeals from Hawkins appeals from the denying his the order denying his Post-Conviction Post-Conviction Relief

Relief Act

Aet Petition

Petition

(hereinafter referred to as (hereinafter as "PCRA"

PCRA" for the sake of brevity) pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.

Pa.CS. §$ 9541 et seq

seq.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

Defendant, Quydeem Hawkins, was arrested on November 17, 2013, and charged with

murder, attempted murder, murder, attempted conspiracy, firearms murder, conspiracy, firearms not not to

to be

be carried without

without aalicense,

license, recklessly

endangering another person, aggravated assault, and possessing an instrument of crime. endangering crime. The de-

fendant was held over for court on all charges charges after aapreliminary hearing on March 4, 2014.

2014. A

A

jury trial was held from February 9, 2015 through February 13, 2015, following which the dejury

of the above-noted crimes.

fendant was convicted of crimes. Mr.

Mr Hawkins was sentenced to life without

parole for first degree murder and concurrent terms of confinement for the remaining charges charges.

(N.T. 2-13-15, pp. (N.T. pp. 16-17). The defendant timely appealed.

appealed. The Superior Court affirmed the trial

court on March 15, 2016, Commonwealth • v. Hawkins, 538 EDA 2015, 144 A.34 A.3d 199

199 (Table)

(Table) and

the Pennsylvania Supreme merer»/tao Court denied sorreme coon

Commomi)ealth v.

2016. Commonwealth denied Appellant's

rename Peto

v. Hawkins, 636 Pa.

Petition for

Pa. 659, 145 A.3d 163

tor Allowance

163 (Table).

(Table)

of"ff ''i""

Allowance of Appeal on July 19,

JUN I188 2024

1 Appeals/Post Trial Office oof office f Judicial Records

Mr. Hawkins filed his PCRA petition on July 14, 2017. Counsel was appointed who filed Mr. Hawkins filed his PCRA petition on July 14, 2017. Counsel was appointed who filed

a Finley' letter. A notice of intent to dismiss was sent to all parties on January 31, 2020, following aFinley' letter. A notice of intent to dismiss was sent to all parties on January 31, 2020, following

which on March 2, 2020, the petition was dismissed. The defendant timely appealed. On May 26, which on March 2, 2020, the petition was dismissed. The defendant timely appealed. On May 26,

2020, an order pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure l 925(b) was sent to the 2020, an order pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b) was sent to the

defendant requiring Mr. Hawkins to provide a statement of matters complained of on appeal within defendant requiring Mr. Hawkins to provide astatement of matters complained of on appeal within

twenty-one days. Appellant failed to respond and after waiting nearly three months for the 1925(b) twenty-one days. Appellant failed to respond and after waiting nearly three months for the 1925(b)

statement, this court filed an opinion recommending the dismissal of Mr. Hawkins' appeal. statement, this court filed an opinion recommending the dismissal of Mr. Hawkins' appeal.

On December 16, 2020, an Order was entered by the Superior Court, remanding the matter On December 16, 2020, an Order was entered by the Superior Court, remanding the matter

for a determination of whether counsel had abandoned the Appellant. This court responded that for adetermination of whether counsel had abandoned the Appellant. This court responded that

counsel had not abandoned Hawkins on February 9, 2021, and entered an order allowing counsel counsel had not abandoned Hawkins on February 9, 2021, and entered an order allowing counsel to withdraw. Mr. Hawkins then filed a subsequent pro se PCRA on February 23, 2021, with a to withdraw. Mr. Hawkins then filed asubsequent pro se PCRA on February 23, 2021, with a

request for extension of time on March 3" of that year. On the thirty-first of that month the request for extension of time on March 3rd of that year. On the thirty-first of that month the

defendant filed a motion for discovery and on April 26, 2021, the Superior Court remanded again defendant filed amotion for discovery and on April 26, 2021, the Superior Court remanded again

and ordered this court to provide the defendant with copies of any requested transcripts and and ordered this court to provide the defendant with copies of any requested transcripts and

documents that this court deemed necessary and relevant to allow for a complete and judicious documents that this court deemed necessary and relevant to allow for acomplete and judicious

assessment of the issues raised on appeal. On June 22, 2021, this court provided all transcripts assessment of the issues raised on appeal. On June 22, 2021, this court provided all transcripts

and discovery to the defendant. Hawkins did not respond and five months later a notice of intent and discovery to the defendant. Hawkins did not respond and five months later anotice of intent to dismiss pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure was served on all the parties. to dismiss pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure was served on all the parties.

Again, having received no response from the defendant, the petition was dismissed on December Again, having received no response from the defendant, the petition was dismissed on December

13, 2021. 13, 2021.

May 20, 2022, the Superior Court remanded the matter for the defendant to file a response May 20, 2022, the Superior Court remanded the matter for the defendant to file aresponse

to the 907 and/or the l 925(b) order. This court set up a video conference with the defendant for to the 907 and/or the 1925(b) order. This court set up avideo conference with the defendant for

1 Commonwealth v. Finley, 379 Pa.Super. 390, 550 A.2d 213 (1988).

I Commonwealth v. Finley, 379 Pa.Super. 390, 550 A.2d 213 ( 1988).

June June 9, 9, 2022,wherein 2022, wherein thethe defendant

defendant claimed

claimed to to have

have never

never received

received thethe

discovery and

discoveryand transcripts transcripts

thiscourt this courtsent, sent,certified

certified mail,

mail, return

return receipt

receipt onon

requested requested July9, 9,2021.

July 2021.Seven

Seven days

days later,

later, this

this court

court

againsent again sentthethetranscripts transcriptsand

anddiscovery,

discovery,again certifiedmail, againcertified mail,return returnreceipt requestedtotothethe receiptrequested

defendant.OnOnAugust defendant. August9, 9,2022, 2022,Hawkins

Hawkinsthen

thenrequested photographsofof requestedphotographs thefirearms the firearmsbebeprovided, provided,

whichthis which thiscourt courtordered

orderedthe

theCommonwealth

Commonwealthtotoprovide thedefendant.

providethe defendant.Pursuant Pursuanttotothe

thedirective

directive

ofof theSuperior the SuperiorCourt, Court,the

thematter

matterwas

wassubsequently continuedforforthe subsequentlycontinued thedefendant defendanttotorespond

respondtotoeither

either

aa907 907ororfile fileaa1925(b)

1925(b)statement

statementononOctober

October11,11,2022;

2022;December

December12,12,2022;

2022;March

March15,15,2023;

2023;June

June

14,2023; 14, 2023;October October5,5,2023;

2023;January

January4,4,2024;

2024;and

andApril

April4,4,2024,

2024,atatwhich

whichtime

timeaavideo

videohearing was

hearingwas

scheduledfor scheduled forMay May3,3,2024.

2024.AtAtthat

thathearing, thedefendant hearing,the defendantwas wasordered

orderedtotofile

fileaaresponse.

response.On

OnMay

May

17\,the 17"', thedefendant defendantfiled

filedhis

hisresponse

responsetotoboth

boththe

the907

907and

and1925(b)

1925(b)orders,

orders,which

whichthis

thisSupplemental

Supplemental

opinion will address. opinion will address.

STANDARD OF REVIEW: STANDARD OF REVIEW:

Thestandard The standardand andscope

scopeofofreview

reviewfor

forthe

thedenial

denialofofaaPCRA

PCRApetition

petitionisiswell-settled.

well-settled. The

The

courtexamines

appellatecourt appellate examinesaaPCRA PCRAappeal

appealininthe

thelight

lightmost

mostfavorable

favorabletotothe

theprevailing

prevailingparty

partyatatthe

the

PCRAlevel. PCRA level. The Thecourt's

court'sreview

reviewisislimited

limitedtotothe

thefindings ofthe

findingsof thePCRA

PCRAcourt

courtand

andthe

theevidence

evidenceof

of

record. Additionally, record. the reviewing Additionally, the court grants reviewing court grants great deference toto the great deference the factual factual findings

findings of

ofthe

the

PCRAcourt PCRA courtand andwill

will not

notdisturb

disturbthose

thosefindings unlessthey findingsunless theyhave

haveno

no support

supportininthe

therecord.

record. InInthis

this

the appellate

respect,the respect, courtwill appellate court willnot

notdisturb

disturb a

aPCRA

PCRAcourt's

court's ruling

rulingififitit isis supported supportedby

by evidence

evidenceof

of

record and record and isis free free of

oflegal error. However, legal error. However, where wherethe

the petitioner raises questions petitionerraises questions of oflaw,

law, the

the standstand

-

ard of and ofreview review isis de de novo and the

nova and the scope ofreview scope of review isis plenary.

plenary. Commonwealth

Commonwealth v.v. Henkel, 90 A.3d Henkel, 90 A.3d

16, 20 16, 20 (Pa.

(Pa.Super.2014), appeal denied, Super. 2014), appeal 101 A.3d denied, 101 A.3d 785

785 (Pa.2014)

(Pa.2014) (citations

(citations and

and quotation

quotation marks

marks

omitted). omitted).

FACTS: FACTS:

The The facts, facts, when

when viewed

viewed in

in the

the light

light most

most favorable

favorable to

to the

the Commonwealth

Commonwealth as

as the

the verdictverdict

-

winner, winner, show show that that atat approximately

approximately three

three o'clock

o'clock in

in the

the afternoon

afternoon of

of October

October 21,

21, 2013,

2013, the

the dede

-

fendant, fendant, Quydeem Quydeem Hawkins, Hawkins, and

and another

another male

male snuck

snuck around

around the

the corner

corner of

of Ditman

Ditman and

and Granite

Granite

Streets Streets in in Philadelphia Philadelphia and

and began

began firing

firing atat a

a group

group of

ofmales

males congregated

congregated around

around the

the steps

steps of

of5121

5121

Ditman Ditman Street, Street, resulting resulting in

in the

the murder

murder of

of Khaalid

Khaalid Boyd.

Boyd. Andre

Andre Richardson,

Richardson, Domonte

Domonte Dark

Dark and

and

Kelsey Kelsey Dark, Dark, friends friends of

ofthe

the deceased,

deceased, witnessed

witnessed the

the shooting.

shooting. Each

Each gave

gave statements

statements to

to the

the police

police

following following the the shooting,

shooting, which

which identified

identified the

the defendant,

defendant,`'Quiz'

Quiz' as

as the

the gunman.

gunman.

Andre Andre Richardson Richardson testified

testified that

that on

on October

October 21,

21, 2013,

2013, at

at approximately

approximately 3:00

3:00 in

in the

the afterafter

-

noon, noon, he he was was outside outside of

of 5123

5123 Ditman

Ditman Street

Street with

with several

several friends,

friends, including

including Khaalid

Khaalid Boyd

Boyd and

and

Kelsey Kelsey Dark, Dark, when when the

the defendant,

defendant, wearing

wearing a

a red

red hoodie,

hoodie, and

and an

an unknown

unknown male

male ran

ran up

up and

and started

started

shooting shooting at at them.

them. (N.T.

(N.T. 2-10-15,

2-10-15, pp.

pp. 55-63).

55-63). Mr.

Mr. Richardson

Richardson testified

testified that

that he

he ran

ran when

when the

the shots

shots

were were fired fired but but returned

returned later

later to

to see

see if Khaalid Boyd

ifKhaalid Boyd was

was alright.

alright. Richardson

Richardson did

did not

not tell

tell the

the officers

officers

at at the the scene scene what what he

he had

had observed

observed as

as itit was

was his

his intention

intention to

to exact

exact retribution

retribution for

for the

the shooting

shooting

himself. himself. (N.T.

(N.T. 2-10-15,

2-10-15, pp.

pp. 65-68).

65-68).

Domonte Domonte Dark's Dark's testimony

testimony established that that he

he heard

heard gunshots

gunshots and that

that Quiz

Quiz "had

"had on

on a

a red

red

hoody hoody and and he was shooting at at us." (N.T.

(N.T. 2-10-15, pp. 130-131, 130-131, 142). Mr.

Mr. Dark further

further stated that

that

"after they finished shooting, they they got back

back into the Honda

Honda Accord. Quiz pointed at me me and skid

off, then he hit a a black Ford. I

I think he was coming after me."

me." (N.T.

(N.T. 2-10-15, p. 144). Domonte

believed that that "It was over some he say/she say stuff over the block. The problem was between me

and him. Someone told him that I I was out to kill him." (N.T.

(N.T. 2-10-15, p. 143).

Kelsey Dark testified that he was outside of 5121 Ditman Street on October 21, 2013, when

he heard shots and ran. (N.T. 2-10-15, p. 166). At the time he was living next door at 5123 Ditman (N.T.2-10-15,

Street. (N.T.

Street.(N.T. 2-10-15, 2-10-15, p. p. 168).Kelsey 168). Kelsey Dark

Dark was

was interviewed

interviewed thethe

byby police

police regarding

regarding this

this incident

incident

onon October October 31,31, 2013, 2013, at at which

which time

time hehe stated

stated that

that hishis brother,

brother, Domonte

Domonte Dark

Dark "got

"got shot

shot in in

thethe

legleg

a couple days ago," in response to whether there were any recent threats made towards him or his acouple days ago," in response to whether there were any recent threats made towards him or his

brother. (N.T. 2-10-15, p. 177). Detective Charles Grebloski, who took the interview of Kelsey brother. (N.T. 2-10-15, p. 177). Detective Charles Grebloski, who took the interview of Kelsey

Dark, also testified at trial regarding Kelsey Dark's statements. (N.T. 2-11-15, pp. 46-60). Dark, also testified at trial regarding Kelsey Dark's statements. (N.T. 2-11-15, pp. 46-60).

Kelly Myhausuk, a school who works at psychologistwho works at Hardy Kelly Myhausuk, aschool psychologist Middle School, located on HardyMiddle School, located on

Torresdale Avenue, near the 5100 block of Ditman Street testified as well (N.T. 2-11-15, pp. 4- Torresdale Avenue, near the 5100 block of Ditman Street testified as well (N.T. 2-11-15, pp. 4-

5). Ms. Myhausuk testified that on October 21, 2013, she left the school around 3:30p.m.driving 5). Ms. Myhausuk testified that on October 21, 2013, she left the school around 3:30 p.m. driving

hercar her caratatthe theintersection

intersectionofofDitman

Ditmanand

andGranite

GraniteStreets. (N.T.2-11-15, Streets.(N.T. 2-11-15,pp.

pp.5-6).

5-6). While

Whileatatthe

the

shesaw

junction,she junction, saw"two "twoyoung AfricanAmerican youngAfrican Americanmales malescoming downGranite, comingdown Granite,hugging theside huggingthe sideofof

the building. "I observed them peeking around the corner looking up and down Ditman, which I the building. "Iobserved them peeking around the corner looking up and down Ditman, which I

kindofofthought kind wassuspicious."

thoughtwas 2-11-15,p.p.7).

(N.T.2-11-15,

suspicious." (N.T. "Themale 7). "The maleclosest

closesttotome

mewas

wasininaared

red

hoody." (N.T. 2-11-15, pp. 8-9). She observed the man in the red hoodie take out a gun, and then hoody." (N.T. 2-11-15, pp. 8-9). She observed the man in the red hoodie take out agun, and then

bothmen both menproceed intothe proceedinto themiddle

middleofofDitman

DitmanStreet.

Street. (N.T.

(N.T.2-11-15,

2-11-15,pp.

pp. 8-12).

8-12). Ms.

Ms.Myhausuk

Myhausuk

testifiedthat testified thatshe shehad

hadseen

seenaacrowd

crowdof

ofpeople

peoplecongregated outsideof congregatedoutside ofthe thethird

thirdororfourth

fourthhouse

housefrom

from

the corner. (N.T. 2-11-15, p. 12). the corner. (N.T. 2-I1-15, p. 12).

When Ms. looked Myhausuk looked up

When Ms. Myhausuk

after the

up after the shooting

shooting had stopped,had she started to stopped, she started to proceed proceed

the intersection,

throughthe through intersection, but but was

was"hit

"hit by a car

by a car traveling on Granite,"

traveling on Granite," which which pushed

pushed her

her car

car "up

"up

onto the onto the sidewalk sidewalk and

and[the]

[the] air

air bags

bags deployed."

deployed." (N.T. 2-11-15, p.p. 9).

(N.T. 2-11-15, She described 9). She described the

the car

car that

that

hit her as a gold, older model sedan, and the passengers in that car to be the same men that hadjust hit her as agold, older model sedan, and the passengers in that car to be the same men that had just

fired the shots. (N.T. 2-11-15, p. 15). She stated, "I believe the male in the red hoody was driving fired the shots. (N.T. 2-11-15, p. 15). She stated, "Ibelieve the male in the red hoody was driving

the car and the male with the white tee shirt was a passenger." (N.T. 2-11-15, p. 15). the car and the male with the white tee shirt was apassenger." (N.T. 2-11-15, p. 15).

There was There was further

further evidence

evidence provided at trial provided at trial that

that a

a gold

gold Honda

Honda was

was left

left at

at the

the scene,

scene, which

which

was processed for evidence, and a video was recovered from a corner store that showed people was processed for evidence, and avideo was recovered from acorner store that showed people fleeing the area. (N.T. 2-11-15, pp. 123-125). fleeing the area. (N.T. 2-11-15, pp. 123-125).

LEGAL DISCUSSION: LEGAL DISCUSSION:

Prosecutorial Misconduct

Prosecutorial Misconduct

Appellant first raises several instances of alleged prosecutorial misconduct. They will be Appellant first raises several instances of alleged prosecutorial misconduct. They will be addressed ad seriatum. addressed ad seriatum.

Brady Violation Brady Violation

Under Brady and its prodigy, the suppression of evidence favorable to an accused, by the Under Brady' and its prodigy, the suppression of evidence favorable to an accused, by the

prosecution, violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, prosecution, violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. The prosecution's failure to divulge irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. The prosecution's failure to divulge

exculpatory evidence is a violation of a defendant's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. exculpatory evidence is aviolation of adefendant's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.

To constitute a Brady violation, the withheld evidence must have been in the exclusive control of To constitute aBrady violation, the withheld evidence must have been in the exclusive control of

the prosecution at the time of trial. See Commonwealth v. Robinson, 122 A.3d 367, 373 the prosecution at the time of trial. See Commonwealth v. Robinson, 122 A.3d 367, 373 (Pa.Super.2015). For a successful Brady violation case, the defendant "must show that ( 1) the (Pa.Super.2015). For asuccessful Brady violation case, the defendant "must show that ( 1) the

prosecution concealed evidence; (2) which was either exculpatory evidence or impeachment eviprosecution concealed evidence; (2) which was either exculpatory evidence or impeachment evidence favorable to [the accused]; and (3) he was prejudiced by the concealment." Commonwealth dence favorable to [the accused]; and (3) he was prejudiced by the concealment." Commonwealth

v. Simpson, 620 Pa. 60, 79, 66 A.3d 253,269 (2013) (citing Commonwealth v. Paddy, 569 Pa. 47, v. Simpson, 620 Pa. 60, 79, 66 A.3d 253, 269 (2013) (citing Commonwealth v. Paddy, 569 Pa. 47, 64-65, 800 A.2d 294,305 (2002); Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281-82, 119 S.Ct. 1936, 144 64-65, 800 A.2d 294, 305 (2002); Strickler v. Greene ,527 U.S .263, 281-82, 119 S.Ct. 1936, 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999)). Prejudice must be such as to demonstrate a "reasonable probability that, had L.Ed.2d 286 ( 1999)). Prejudice must be such as to demonstrate a "reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different." the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different."

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

Commonwealth ». Clark, 599 Pa. 204, 219, 961 A.2d 80, 89 (2008) (quoting Commonwealth v.

Connnorn, aealth v. Clark, 599 Pa. 204, 219, 961 A.2d 80, 89 (2008) (quoting Commonwealth v. Burke, 566 Pa. 402, 781 A.2d 1136, 1141 (2001)).

Burke, 566 Pa. 402, 781 A.2d 1136, 1141 (2001)).

Hawkins first complains that "the prosecutor withheld exculpatory evidence, after the jury Hawkins first complains that "the prosecutor withheld exculpatory evidence, after the jury requested to view the evidence." "See: (N.T. 2-13-15 pg.8) -- BRADY Violation...."Property

re quested to view Receipt the evid 3104566", ence."

"Property "See: (N.T.

Receipt 2-13-15

3104567 pg.8) — BRADY ," "Commonwealth violation.

Exhibit ..."Property C-86, Commonwealth

",Commonwealth Commonwealth " "Prop erty Rec eipt 3104567, " lth Exhibit C-96 5'

,

Rece ipt 3104566 Exhibit , C-87."". p Y

(Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, p. 1).3 During deliberations, Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, p. 1).3 During deliberations, Exhibit C-87.

the jury sent out seven questions requesting certain evidence be sent back to them to consider. A the fury sent out seven questions requesting certain evidence be sent back to them to consider. A conference was held between the court and counsel as to the appropriateness of the requested ce was held between the court and counsel as to the appropriateness of the requested conference documents. The following discussion occurred between the court, Mr. Wallace the defense nts. The following discussion occurred between the court, Mr. Wallace — the defense docume attorney and the prosecutor:

attorney and the prosecutor:"MR. WALLA CE: ... You can't send it out as is because thereis is a property receipt for guns on 4" Street whichtas you cause excluded.

"MR. WALLACE: • • •guns on 4 n' Street wwhh•ic it h h you exc

b luded

.

THE COURT: What do you want removed?

there is aproperty receiptfor g THEMR. WALLACE:

COURT: What do86,you87.

want I don't

removed?think the arrest warrant MR.judge."

either, WALLACE: 86, 87. 1don't think the arrest warrant (N.T. 2-13-2015, pp. 7-8).

either, judge."

(N.T. 2-13-2015, pp. 7-8).

It is crystal clear that it was defense counsel who requested that exhibit 86 and 87 not be 's cry stal clear that it was defense counsel who requested t hat exhibit 86 and 87 not be i crto

sentItback y the jurors and accordingly, this claim of prosecutorial misconduct fails. sent back to the jurors and accordingly, this claim of prosecutorial misconduct fails.

Perjury

Pei-jury Appellant next contends "The prosecutor violated the defendant's 5", 6, & 14"

next contends "The prosecutor violated the defendant's 5th ,6th , & 14th Appellant

Amendment (N.T. 2-12-15 pg.44) - Then See (N.T. 2-10-15 pg59)." (Statement of Matters dment (N.T. 2-12-15 pg.44) — Then See (N.T. 2-10-15 pg59)." (Statement of Matters Ame n Complained of on Appeal, p. 2).

Complained of on Appeal, p. 2).

3 Appellant filed a somewhat detailed 1925(b) statement, however his 907 response summarily repeated the same claims "The following issues display's t 3 Appellant filed asomewhat detailed 1925(b) s numerous merited claims. Such as BRADY VIOLATION, ate ment, however his 907 response summarily repeated te same PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, INEFFECTIVE num erous ASSISTANCE merited claims.OF Such BRADY VIOLATION, TRIALas COUNSEL, INEFFECTIVE pp

claims OF PCRAissues "The following

ASSISTANCE COUNSEL, LACK OF EVIDENCE, POLICE MISCONDUCT, COURT INEFFECTIVE ERRORS,

PROSECUTORIAL MISIDENTIFICATION, MISCONDUCT, INEFFE LAC KE

WITNESS CREDIBILITY, TI V VIOLATION COFEVIDENCE, POLICE M ISCONDUCT OF UNITED STATES , CONSTITUTIONAL COURT ERRORS,

ASSISTANCE AMENDMENTS OF 5t, PCRA6, COUNSEL,

14", SS

VIOLATION OF PENNSYLVANIA CREDIBILITY, VIOLATION OF UNITED RULES STATES CONSTITUTION OF EVIDENCE. MALICIOUS AL

MOTIVE, PERJURY BYWITNE SS VIOLATION

PROSECUTION. OF PENNSYLVANIA PERJURY BY WITNESS." RULES OFResponse, [sic]. (907 EVIDENCE.p. 1). MALICIOUS AMENDMENTS 5t, 6°i, 101, 907 Resp onse, p. 1)• MOTIVE, PERJURY BY PROSECUTION. PERJURY BY WITNESS." [sic]. ( p

Mr. Hawkins does not state what it was about the prosecutor's statements was perjurious Mr. Hawkins does not state what it was about the prosecutor's statements was perjurious or violative of the Fifth, Sixth or Fourteenth Amendments. Failure of a defendant to adequately or violative of the Fifth, Sixth or Fourteenth Amendments. Failure of adefendant to adequately identify, in a concise manner, the issues he seeks to pursue on appeal, the trial court is impeded in identify, in aconcise manner, the issues he seeks to pursue on appeal, the trial court is impeded in its preparation of a legal analysis pertinent to those issues. Commonwealth vs. Dowling, 778 A.2d its preparation of alegal analysis pertinent to those issues. Commonwealth vs. Dowling, 778 A.2d 683, 686 (Pa.Super.2001); Commonwealth v. Ray, 134 A.3d 1109, 1114 (Pa.Super.2016); In re 683, 686 (Pa.Super.2001); Commonwealth v. Ray, 134 A.3d 1109, 1114 (Pa.Super.2016); In re Estate of Daubert, 757 A.2d 962, 963 (Pa.Super.2000). "When a court has to guess what issues Estate of Daubert, 757 A.2d 962, 963 (Pa.Super.2000). "When acourt has to guess what issues an appellant is appealing, that is not enough for meaningful review." Commonwealth v. Butler, an appellant is appealing, that is not enough for meaningful review." Commonwealth. v. Butler, 756 A.2d 55, 57 (Pa.Super.2000) (citing Giles v. Douglas, 747 A.2d 1236, 1237 (Pa.Super.2000)). 756 A.2d 55, 57 (Pa.Super.2000) (citing Giles v. Douglas, 747 A.2d 1236, 1237 (Pa.Super.2000)).

The transcript for the identified notes of testimony concerning the testimony of Andre The transcript for the identified notes of testimony concerning the testimony of Andre Richardson is as follows: Richardson is as follows:

A. "Yeah. We all know what happened. Yeah, yeah, something A, "Yeah. We all know what happened. Yeah, yeah, something happened. happened.Q. What happened?

Q. A.

What happened?

That bitch ass nigger right there. (Indicating)

A. Q.

That bitch ass nigger right there. (Indicating)

Right where?

Q. THE

RightDEFENDANT:

where? You bitch THE DEFENDANT:

THE WITNESS: You wereYou bitch — you bitch ass.

high,

THE THE COURT: Mr. Richardson,you WITNESS: You were high, bitchthe answer ass.

questions.

THE THE COURT:

WITNESS:Mr. Richardson, answer I don't care what youthe sayquestions.

to me. Ain't like that

inTHE

jail. WITNESS:

Tell him to Idon't

stop care what

running his you say to

fucking me. Ain't like that mouth.

in jail.THE

TellDEFENDANT:

him to stop running

Fuckhis fucking

you, man. mouth.

THE DEFENDANT: Fuck you, man.

THE COURT: Take the jury out of the room.

THE COURT:

k kTake

k the jury out of the room.

(Whereupon the jury panel, having been excused from the jury box) (Whereupon the jury

k k k panel, having been excused from the jury box)

THE COURT: Mr. Richardson, you're not to have any THE COURT: conversations Mr. defendant.

with the Richardson,

Youyou're not to the

are to answer have any questions

conversations presented by with

- the defendant. You are to answer the questions presented

THE by —

WITNESS: I'm answering the questions. I answered the THE WITNESS: questions. I'maanswering I called him the questions. Ianswered the "bitch ass."

questions. Icalled him

THE COURT: Mr. aRichardson, "bitch ass."listen to me or I will hold you in THE COURT: Mr. Richardson, You are not to have any listen to me or Iwill discussions hold you in or conversations

contempt. contempt. You are not with the defendant. Youtoarehave anyanswer to only discussions or conversations the questions presented.

with Ithe defendant. You are to only answer the questions presented.

would prefer that you look at the jury --Mr. Hawkins, you are to I

sitwould

there prefer thattrying

without you look at theconversations to have jury — Mr. Hawkins, with anyyou

of are

the

to sit there without trying to have conversations with any of the

9

witnesses. If you wish to testify, you will be given your chance. If witnesses. If you wish to testify, you will be given your chance. If not, I will hold you in contempt. Do you understand?"

not, Iwill holdpp. (N.T. 2-10-2015, you in contempt. Do you understand?"

59-60).

(N.T. 2-10-2015, pp. 59-60).

The complained of closing by the prosecutor is as follows:

The complained of closing by the prosecutor is as follows:

"And why? That's right, Mr. Wallace, some he said, she said.

"And why? That's right, Mr. Wallace, some he said, she said. So Khalid Boyd and his family, he loses his life over some he said, So Khalid Boyd and his family, he loses his life over some he said, she said. What kind of crap is that?

she said.

And What kind ofthey

of course, crap don't

is that?

come in here and do the right thing.

And of course, they don't come in here and do the right thing. No, no. Because there is a code on the street. Do you think they No, no. Because there is acode on the street. Do you think they know that when the detective is writing down everything they say know that when the detective is writing down everything they say that when they get up here, I'm going to be able to read it back and thatyou

whenarethey

goinggettoup

be here,

able toI'm going

use that. toYou

be able to read

see these it back and

statements here?

youTheare judge

going is

to going

be abletototell

useyouthat. Youhesee these statements when gives you the law, here?

you can

Theusejudge

thoseis statements

going to tell as you when heevidence.

substantive gives you And the law, youiscan

all that a big

use those statements as substantive evidence. And all that is abig fancy word as if they got up here and said those things that are in fancy

thatword as if they got up here and said those things that are in statement.

that statement.

Mr. Wallace wants to call it lying? Listen, when Andre Mr. Wallace tookwants to call it Richardson that stand, you arelying?

not blind.Listen, when

You are Andre

not deaf. You

Richardson took that stand, you are not blind. You are not deaf. You saw the exchange between those two. He called him names. He saw the exchange between those two. He called him names. He called him rat. You don't want to be a rat in this city. You don't called him rat. You don't want to be arat in this city. You don't want to be a snitch in this city. But it was too late. He already took want to be asnitch in this city. But it was too late. He already took down what he said. And they both said the same thing on the same down what he said. And they both said the same thing on the same day to the same detective."

(N.T. day to the same 2-12-2015, detective."

pp. 44-45).

(N.T. 2-12-2015, pp. 44-45).

The law is clear that comments by a prosecutor only constitute reversible error where their The law is clear that comments by aprosecutor only constitute reversible error where their unavoidable effect is to prejudice the jury, forming in their minds a fixed bias and hostility toward unavoidable effect is to prejudice the jury, forming in their minds afixed bias and hostility toward the defendant such that they could not weigh the evidence objectively and render a fair verdict. the defendant such that they could not weigh the evidence objectively and render afair verdict. Commonwealth v. Bryant, 620 Pa. 218, 67 A.34 716, 727 (2013); Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, Commonwealth v. Bryant, 620 Pa. 218, 67 A.3d 716, 727 (2013); Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 611 Pa. 280, 25 A.3d 277, 307 (2011). Moreover, it has long been the law in Pennsylvania that 611 Pa. 280, 25 A.3d 277, 307 (2011). Moreover, it has long been the law in Pennsylvania that prosecutors have considerable latitude during closing arguments and are permitted to comment on prosecutors have considerable latitude during closing arguments and are permitted to comment on the evidence or appropriate inferences to be drawn from the evidence, and in the process, to employ the evidence or appropriate inferences to be drawn from the evidence, and in the process, to employ oratorical flair. See Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 598 Pa. 621, 959 A.2d 916,923 (2008) (prosecutor oratorical flair. See Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 598 Pa. 621, 959 A.2d 916, 923 (2008) (prosecutor did not engage in improper argument by twice referring to defendant as a homicidal predator); did not engage in improper argument by twice referring to defendant as ahomicidal predator); Commonwealth v. Holley, 945 A.2d 241,250 (Pa.Super.2008). Commoma)ealth v. Holley, 945 A.2d 241, 250 (Pa.Super.2008).

10

Remarks made by a prosecutor during summation must be examined within the context of Remarks made by aprosecutor during summation must be examined within the context of

defense counsel's conduct since it is well settled that a prosecutor may fairly respond to points defense counsel's conduct since it is well settled that aprosecutor may fairly respond to points

made by the defense. Commonwealth v. Chmiel 585 Pa. 547, 889 A.2d 501 (2005). Furthermore, made by the defense. Commonwealth v. Chmiel 585 Pa. 547, 889 A.2d 501 (2005). Furthermore,

comments by a prosecutor do not warrant judicial relief unless the unavoidable effect of those comments by aprosecutor do not warrant judicial relief unless the unavoidable effect of those

comments is to prejudice the jury, forming in the jurors' minds a fixed bias and hostility toward comments is to prejudice the jury, forming in the jurors' minds afixed bias and hostility toward

the defendant such that they could not weight the evidence objectively and render a fair verdict. the defendant such that they could not weight the evidence objectively and render afair verdict.

Commonwealth v. Tedford, 589 Pa. 639, 960 A.2d 1, 33 (2008); Commonwealth v. Rios, 591 Pa. Commonwealth v. Tedford, 589 Pa. 639, 960 A.2d 1, 33 (2008); Commonwealth v. Rios, 591 Pa.

583,617, 920 A.2d 790, 809 (2007). 583, 617, 920 A.2d 790, 809 (2007).

While the courts have held that it is improper for a district attorney to express their personal While the courts have held that it is improper for adistrict attorney to express their personal

opinion about a defendant's guilt, the courts have also clearly stated that "a district attorney must opinion about adefendant's guilt, the courts have also clearly stated that "adistrict attorney must

have reasonable latitude in fairly presenting a case to the jury and that he or she must be free to have reasonable latitude in fairly presenting acase to the jury and that he or she must be free to

present his or her arguments with 'logical force and vigor."' Commonwealth v. Smith, 490 Pa. present his or her arguments with ` logical force and vigor."' Commonwealth v. Smith, 490 Pa.

380,387,416, A.2d, 986, 989 (1980) (quoting Commonwealth v. Cronin, 464 Pa. 138, 143, 346 380, 387, 416, A.2d, 986, 989 ( 1980) (quoting Commonwealth v. Cronin, 464 Pa. 138, 143, 346 A.2d 59,62 (1975)). It is entirely proper for a prosecutor to summarize the evidence that has been A.2d 59, 62 ( 1975)). It is entirely proper for aprosecutor to summarize the evidence that has been

presented and to offer reasonable inferences from the evidence and to argue that the evidence presented and to offer reasonable inferences from the evidence and to argue that the evidence

establishes the defendant's guilt. Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 61 l Pa. 280, 25 A.3d 277, 307 establishes the defendant's guilt. Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 611 Pa. 280, 25 A.3d 277, 307

(2011) (citing Commonwealth v. DeJesus, 580 Pa. 303,800 A.2d 102, 112 (2004)). "Furthermore, (2011) (citing Commonwealth v. DeJesus, 580 Pa. 303, 800 A.2d 102, 112 (2004)). "Furthermore, the district attorney may always argue to the jury that the evidence establishes the defendant's the district attorney may always argue to the jury that the evidence establishes the defendant's

guilt. Finally, the prejudicial effect of the district attorney's remarks must be evaluated in the guilt. Finally, the prejudicial effect of the district attorney's remarks must be evaluated in the context in which they occurred." Commonwealth v. Smith, supra. context in which they occurred." Commonwealth v. Smith, supra.

Further, "reversible error occurs only when the unavoidable effect of the challenged com- Further, "reversible error occurs only when the unavoidable effect of the challenged com-

ments would prejudice the jurors, and form in their minds a fixed bias and hostility toward the ments would prejudice the jurors, and form in their minds afixed bias and hostility toward the

defendant such that the jurors could not weigh the evidence and render a true verdict." Commondefendant such that the jurors could not weigh the evidence and render atrue verdict." Common-

11

wealth v. Hanible, 612 Pa. 183, 248, 30 A.3d 426, 465 (2011) (quoting Commonwealth v. Cox, wealth v. Hanible, 612 Pa. 183, 248, 30 A.3d 426, 465 (2011) (quoting Commonwealth v. Cox, 603 Pa. 223, 983 A.2d 666, 685 (2009)). A review of both closings clearly shows that the prose-

603 Pa. 223, 983 A.2d 666, 685 (2009)). A review of both closings clearly shows that the prosecutor 's remarks were in response to the defendant's closing and could not have prejudiced the jury cutor's remarks were in response to the defendant's closing and could not have prejudiced the jury to preclude them from fairly weighing the evidence and rendering a true verdict.

to preclude them from fairly weighing the evidence and rendering atrue verdict.

Prior to the presentation of opening statements by counsel, the jury was instructed:

Prior to the presentation of opening statements by counsel, the jury was instructed:

"As I told you earlier, you're the sole judges of the facts, and "As Itold and credibility, you weight

earlier,of

you're the sole judges

the evidence. You mustof the relyfacts, andown

on your

credibility, and weight

recollection of the evidence.

and evaluation You mustduring of the evidence rely onyour yourdeliberaown

recollection and evaluation of the tions and not mine or counsels'. evidence during your deliberations and not mine or counsels'.

You're not bound by any opinion that counsel or I might express You're about notguilt,

the bound by any opinion innocence, that counsel credibility or I or weight might

of express

evidence, facts

about the guilt,

proven by theinnocence, credibility evidence, or inferencesor to weight of evidence,

be drawn from the facts

facts.

proven by the evidence, or inferences to be drawn from the facts.

You should consider the statements and arguments of counsel You should carefully evenconsider the statements though they and arguments are not binding on you and of notcounsel

evidence.

carefully even though they are not binding on you and not evidence.

You may be guided by them if the statements and arguments areYou may be by

supported guided

the by them ifand

evidence the statements appeal to and

yourarguments

reason and

arejudgment."

supported (N.T.

by the evidence and appeal 2-10-2015, pp. 11-12). to your reason and judgment." (N.T. 2-10-2015, pp. I1-12).

The jury was issued this more detailed admonition in advance of closing arguments: The jury was issued this more detailed admonition in advance of closing arguments:

"Now, speeches of counsel are not part of the evidence and you "Now,not should speeches

consider of them

counselas are

such.not However,

part of theinevidence

decidingand theyou

case

should not consider

you should them carefully as such.

consider the However,

evidence inin deciding

light of the thevarious

case

you shouldand

reasons carefully consider arguments each the evidence lawyer in lightIt of presented. is the the various

right and

reasons

duty of each lawyer to discuss the evidence in a manner thatand and arguments each lawyer presented. It is the right was duty

mostoffavorable

each lawyer fromtothe

discuss the evidence

side they represent. inYou amanner

should that was

be guided

most favorable

by each lawyer'sfromargument the side they

to therepresent. You

extent they areshould be guided by the

supported

byevidence

each lawyer's argument and insofar to the as they aideextent

you inthey are supported applying your ownbyreasonthe evidence and insofar

and common sense.asHowever, they aide youyou arein applying your to not required own reason accept the

and

arguments of either lawyer. It is for you and you alone to decidethe common sense. However, you are not required to accept the arguments case basedofon either lawyer. Itasis itfor the evidence wasyou and you alone presented through to decide the the witness

case based stand and inon accordance the evidence as it

with thewas presentedIthrough instructions am giving theyou.

witness

stand and in accordance (N.T. 2-12-2015, p. 84). with the instructions I am giving you. (N.T. 2-12-2015, p. 84).

12

AA reviewofof review bothattorney's both attorney'sclosings closingsclearly showsthat clearlyshows that

thethe prosecutor's

prosecutor's remarks

remarks werein in

were

response response to to thethe defendant'sclosing defendant's andcould closingand couldnotnot haveprejudiced have thethe

prejudiced juryto topreclude jury preclude them them from

from

fairly weighing the evidence and rendering a true verdict. fairly weighing the evidence and rendering atrue verdict.

Confused and Misled the Jury Confused and Misled the Jury

Appellantnext Appellant nextlists liststen

tenpages

pagesininthethenotes

notesofof testimonyunder

testimony underthetheheading headingofofconfused

confusedand

and

misledthe misled thejury.

jury. AAreview

reviewofofthe

thecited

citedtranscript

transcriptpages doesnot

pagesdoes notshow

showany obviousattempt

anyobvious attempttoto

confuseorormislead confuse misleadthe thejury andHawkins

juryand Hawkinsisisnot

notspecific

specificininhis

hiscomplaints.

complaints. Again, failureofofaa Again,failure

defendanttotoadequately defendant identify,ininaaconcise adequatelyidentify, concisemanner, manner,the

theissues

issuesheheseeks

seekstotopursue

pursueononappeal, the

appeal,the

trialcourt trial courtisisimpeded impededininitsitspreparation preparationofofaalegal

legalanalysis pertinenttotothose analysispertinent thoseissues.

issues.Commonwealth

Commonwealth

vs.vs.Dowling, 778A.2d Dowling,778 A.2d683, 683,686

686(Pa.Super.2001); Commonwealthv.v.Ray, (Pa.Super.2001);Commonwealth 134A.3d Ray, 134 A.3d1109, 1114 1109,1114

EstateofofDaubert,

Super. 2016); InInrereEstate (Pa.Super.2016); (Pa. 757A.2d Daubert,757 A.2d962,

962,963

963(Pa.Super.2000). "Whenaacourt (Pa.Super.2000)."When courthas has

toto guess what issues guess what issues anan appellant appellant isis appealing, that isis not appealing, that not enough enough for

for meaningful

meaningful review."

review."

Commonwealthv.v. Butler, Commonwealth 756A.2d Butler,756 A.2d55,

55,5757(Pa.Super.2000)

(Pa.Super.2000)(citing

(citingGiles

Gilesv.v. Douglas, 747A.2d Douglas,747 A.2d

1236,1237 1236, 1237(Pa.Super.2000)), (Pa.Super.2000)). Consequently, thisclaim Consequently,this claimisiswithout withoutmerit.

merit.

Malicious Motive Malicious Motive

next avers

Appellantnext Appellant avers"Malicious "Malicious motive"

motive" presumably by the presumably by theprosecutor, prosecutor, although

althoughthat

thatisis

not clear, not clear, citing three pages citing three from the pages from the transcript ofthe transcript of the trial.

trial. No

No further

further explanation

explanation has

has been

been

Inwhat

provided. In provided. whatseems seemslike

likea

arefrain

refrainin

inthis

thisopinion,

opinion,failure

failureof

ofa

adefendant

defendanttoto adequately

adequatelyidentify,

identify,

in a in a concise concise manner, manner, the

the issues

issues he

he seeks

seeks toto pursue on appeal, pursue on the trial appeal, the trial court court isis impeded

impeded in

in its

its

of a

preparation of preparation a legal legal analysis

analysis pertinent to those pertinent to those issues.

issues. Commonwealth

Commonwealth vs.

vs. Dowling, 778 A.2d

Dowling, 778 A.2d

683,686 683, (Pa.Super.2001);

686 (Pa. Commonwealth v.v. Ray, Super. 2001); Commonwealth 134 A.3d Ray, 134 A.3d 1109, 1114 (Pa.Super.2016);

1109, 1114 (Pa.Super.2016); In In re

re

Estate of Estate 757 A.2d Daubert, 757 ofDaubert, A.2d 962, 962, 963

963 (Pa.Super.2000). "When a (Pa.Super.2000). "When a court court has

has to

to guess

guess what

what issues

issues

an appellant an appellant is is appealing,

appealing, that

that is

is not

not enough

enough for

for meaningful

meaningful review."

review." Commonwealth

Commonwealth v.v. Butler, Butler,

13

756 A.2d 55, 57 (Pa.Super.2000) (citing Giles v. Douglas, 756 A.2d 55, 57 (Pa.Super.2000) (citing Giles v. Douglas, 747 A.2d 1236, 1237

(Pa.Super.2000)).

747 A.2d 1236, 1237 (Pa.Super.2000)).

Thus, this averment needs to be dismissed. Thus, this averment needs to be dismissed.

Prosecutor violated Rules of Evidence and Standards Prosecutor violated Rules of Evidence and Standards

Hawkinsnext Hawkins nextattacks attacksthetheprosecutor

prosecutorasasviolating severalRules violatingseveral RulesofofEvidence, Evidence,Rules

Rulesofof

Judicial Administration, and ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, again with no specificity. Once Judicial Administration, and ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, again with no specificity. Once

more, the undersigned would be required to guess what Appellant's complaints are and as such his more, the undersigned would be required to guess what Appellant's complaints are and as such his

failure to adequately identify, in a concise manner, the issues he seeks to pursue on appeal, the failure to adequately identify, in aconcise manner, the issues he seeks to pursue on appeal, the

undersigned is impeded in its preparation of a legal analysis pertinent to those issues. undersigned is impeded in its preparation of a legal analysis pertinent to those issues.

Commonwealth vs. 778 A.2d 683, 686 (Pa.Super.2001); Commonwealth v. Ray, 134 Dowling,778 A.2d 683, 686 (Pa.Super.2001); Commonwealth v. Ray, 134 Commonwealth vs. Dowling,

A.3d 1109, 1114 (Pa.Super.2016); In re Estate of Daubert, 757 A.2d 962, 963 (Pa.Super.2000). A.3d 1109, 1114 (Pa.Super.2016); In re Estate of Daubert, 757 A.2d 962, 963 (Pa.Super.2000).

"When a court has to guess what issues an appellant is appealing, that is not enough for meaningful "When acourt has to guess what issues an appellant is appealing, that is not enough for meaningful

review." Commonwealth v. Butler, 756 A.2d 55, 57 (Pa.Super.2000) (citing Giles v. Douglas, 747 review." Commonwealth v. Butler, 756 A.2d 55, 57 (Pa.Super.2000) (citing Giles v. Douglas, 747

A.2d 1236, 1237 Again,Appellant (Pa.Super.2000)). Again,

A.2d 1236, 1237 (Pa.Super.2000)).

has not met any burden of proof to sustain Appellanthas not met any burden of proof to sustain

this claim, and it should be dismissed. this claim, and it should be dismissed.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

raises two

Appellant raises Appellant two issues issues contending trial counsel contending trial counsel was was ineffective.

ineffective. The

The law

law inin Penn-

Penn-

sylvaniaisisstraightforward sylvania thatcounsel straightforwardthat counselisispresumed effectiveand presumedeffective anda

adefendant

defendantclaiming

claimingineffective

ineffective

assistance of counsel bears the burden of proving otherwise. Commonwealth v. Fears, 624 Pa. assistance of counsel bears the burden of proving otherwise. Commonwealth v. Fears, 624 Pa.

446, 86 A.3d 795 Commonwealth v. Cross, 535 Pa. 38,634 A.2d 173 (1993). In order to (2014); Commonwealth v. Cross, 535 Pa. 38, 634 A.2d 173 ( 1993). In order to 446, 86 A.3d 795 (2014);

overcome this presumption, a defendant must meet a three-component standard set forth in Strickovercome this presumption, adefendant must meet athree-component standard set forth in Strick-

land v.v. Washington, land Washington, 466 466 U.S.

U.S. 668,

668, 104

104 S.Ct.

S.Ct. 2052,

2052, 80

80 L.Ed.2d

L.Ed.2d 674

674 ((1984): First, the

1984): First, the underlying underlying

claim must claim must have have arguable

arguable merit. Commonwealth v.v. Lauro, merit. Commonwealth. Lauro, 819 819 A.2d

A.2d 100,

100, 105-106

105-106

(Pa.Super.2003); (Pa. Commonwealth v.v». Rollins, Super. 2003); Commonwealth Rollins, 558 558 Pa.

Pa. 532,

532, 542,

542, 738

73 8 A.2d

A.2d 435,

435, 441

441 ((1999); Com-

1999); Com-

14

monwealthv. •Travaglia, monwealth Travaglia,541541Pa.Pa.108, 108,661

661A.2d

A.2d352,

352,356356 Second,nonoreasonable (1995).Second, ( 1995). reasonablebasis basis

must must exist exist forfor counsel'sactions counsel's actionsoror failure failure to to act.InIn

act. making

making thisdetermination, this determination,thethe appellate appellate court

court

doesnot does notquestion questionwhether

whetherthere

therewas

wasaamore

morelogical courseofofaction logicalcourse actionwhich whichcounsel

counselcould

couldhave

have

pursued,but pursued, butrather ratherdid

didcounsel's

counsel'sdecision

decisionhave

haveany

anyreasonable

reasonablebasis. Commonwealthv. v».Rollins, basis.Commonwealth Rollins,

supra,558 supra, 558Pa.

Pa.atat542,

542,738

738A.2d

A.2datat441.

441. Lastly, thedefendant Lastly,the defendantmust mustestablish

establishthat

thathehesuffered

suffered

prejudicebecause prejudice becauseofofcounsel's counsel'serror,

error,such

suchthat

thatthere

thereis isaareasonable

reasonableprobability thatthe probabilitythat theoutcome outcome

ofof theproceeding the proceedingwould wouldhave

havebeen

beendifferent

differentabsent

absentsuch

suchananerror. Commonwealthv. v.Fears, error.Commonwealth Fears,supra, supra,

642Pa. 642 Pa.atat461, 461,8686A.3d

A.3datat804; Commonwealthv. v.Lesko, 804;Commonwealth Lesko,609 609Pa.

Pa.128,

128,1515A.3d

A.3d345,

345,373-74

373-74(2011)

(2011)

(citing Commonwealthv.v.Pierce, ( citingCommonwealth Pierce,515 515Pa.

Pa.153,

153,527

527A.2d

A.2d973,

973,975

975(1987)).

(1987)).ItItisisnot

notenough forthe

enoughfor the

defendanttotoclaim defendant claimthat thatcounsel

counselcould

couldhave

havetaken

takendifferent

differentsteps, butrather, steps,but rather,hehemust mustprove that

provethat

counsel'sstrategy counsel's was" so strategywas "sounreasonable unreasonablethat

thatnonocompetent

competentlawyer

lawyerwould

wouldhave

havechosen

chosenit." Comit

." Com-

monwealthv.v.Dunbar, monwealth Dunbar,503 503Pa.

Pa.590,

590,470 A.2d74,

470 A.2d 74,7777( 1983); Commonwealthv.v.Albrecht, (1983);Commonwealth Albrecht,510 510Pa.

Pa.

603,511 603, 511A.2d A.2d764,

764,775

775( 1986).

(1986). Counsel

Counselisispresumed

presumedtotohave

haverendered

renderedeffective

effectiveassistance,

assistance,and,

and,

ififa aclaim claimfails failsunder

underany

anyrequired elementofofthe requiredelement Stricklandtest, theStrickland test,the

thecourt

courtmay

maydismiss

dismissthe

theclaim

claim

onthat on thatbasis. Commonwealthv.v. Vandivner, basis. Commomi)ealth Vandivner, 634 634Pa.

Pa. 482,

482, 490,

490, 130

130 A.3d

A.3d676,

676, 680

680(2015).

(2015). To

To

obtainrelief obtain reliefbased basedupon

uponaaclaim

claimof

ofineffective

ineffectiveassistance

assistanceof

ofcounsel,

counsel,aapetitioner

petitionermust

mustestablish

establishby

by

apreponderance a ofevidence preponderanceof evidencethat thatcounsel's

counsel'sineffectiveness

ineffectiveness"so

"soundermined

underminedthe

thetruth-determining

truth-determining

that no

process that process no reliable reliable adjudication ofguilt adjudication of or innocence guilt or innocence could could have

have taken

taken place."

place." 42

42 Pa.C.S.

Pa.C.S.

§9543(a)(2)(ii). §9543(a)(2)(ii).

Mr. Hawkins Mr. Hawkins contends

contends counsel

counsel was

was ineffective

ineffective in

in failing

failing to

to present

present exculpatory

exculpatory evidence

evidence

to the to thejury, specifically Commonwealth jury, specifically Commonwealth Exhibits Exhibits 86

86 and

and 87.

87. (Statement

(Statement of

ofMatters

Matters Complained

Complained of

of

on Appeal, on Appeal, p.

p. 3).

3). The

The issue

issue was

was conclusively

conclusively addressed

addressed in

in the

the previous

previous section

section alleging

alleging

prosecutorial misconduct and is adopted herein. prosecutorial misconduct and is adopted herein.

15

Thesecond The secondclaim claimofofineffective

ineffectiveassistance

assistanceofoftrial

trialcounsel

counselwas

washis

hisfailure

failuretotoobject

objecttotothe

the

violationofofthe violation thedefendant's defendant'sSixth

Sixthand

andFourteenth

FourteenthAmendments

Amendmentstotothe

theUnited

UnitedStaes

StaesConstitution.

Constitution.

(Statementof (Statement ofMatters MattersComplained ofon

Complainedof onAppeal,

Appeal,p.p. 3). Oncemore, 3). Once more,this

thisissue

issuewas

wasaddressed

addressedinin

theprosecutorial the prosecutorialsection sectionof

ofthis

thisopinion andisisadopted opinionand hereinfor adoptedherein forthe

thesake

sakeof

ofbrevity.

brevity.

CourtError Court Error

Mr.Hawkins Mr. Hawkinsnext nextavers

aversthe

thecourt

courtfailed

failedtotopresent evidence(C-86 exculpatoryevidence

presentexculpatory (C-86and and87)

87)and

and

violated the violated the defendant's defendant's Sixth

Sixth and

and Fourteenth

Fourteenth Amendment

Amendment rights. (Statement of rights. (Statement of Matters Matters

ofon

Complainedof Complained onAppeal, Appeal,p.p. 3). Theseclaims 3). These claimsappear

appeartotobe

bethe

thesame

samecomplaints

complaintshe

heraised

raisedagainst

against

theprosecutor the andtrial prosecutorand trial counsel counseland

andhave

havepreviously beendiscussed.

previouslybeen discussed.

Then Hawkins Then Hawkins contends contends this

this court

court committed

committed perjury

perjury during the closing during the closing instructions instructions and

and

makes an makes an accusation accusation that

that the

the undersigned

undersigned tampered with the tampered with the evidence, evidence, again

again without

without any

any

Once more,

specificity. Once specificity. more, the theundersigned would be undersigned would be required to guess required to what Appellant's guess what Appellant's complaints complaints

are and are and as as such

suchhis

hisfailure

failureto

to adequately in a identify, in

adequately identify, aconcise concisemanner,

manner,the

the issues

issueshe

he seeks

seeksto

topursue

pursue

on appeal, on theundersigned appeal, the undersigned isis impeded in its impeded in itspreparation ofa preparation of alegal

legal analysis

analysis pertinent

pertinentto

to those

those issues.

issues.

Commonwealth vs. Commonwealth vs. Dowling, 778 A.2d Dowling, 778 A.2d 683,

683, 686

686 (Pa.Super.2001); Commonwealth v.v. Ray, (Pa.Super.2001); Commonwealth Ray, 134 134

A.3d 1109, A.3d 1109, 1114 1114 (Pa.Super.2016); In re (Pa.Super.2016); In Estate of re Estate Daubert, 757 ofDaubert, 757 A.2d

A.2d 962,

962, 963

963 (Pa.

(Pa.Super.2000).

Super. 2000).

"When a "When a court court has has to

to guess what issues

guess what issues an

an appellant

appellant isis appealing, that isis not appealing, that not enough enough for

for meaningful

meaningful

review." Commonwealth v.v. Butler, review." Commonwealth Butler, 756 756 A.2d

A.2d 55,

55, 57

57 (Pa.Super.2000)

(Pa.Super.2000) (citing Giles v.v. Douglas, (citing Giles Douglas, 747 747

A.2d 1236, A.2d 1236, 1237 1237 (Pa.

(Pa.Super.2000)).

Super. 2000)).

Furthermore, a Furthermore, a trial

trial court

court is

is bound

bound to

to charge a jury

charge a on the

jury on the correct

correct legal

legal principles

principles applicable

applicable

to the facts presented at trial. Commonwealth v. Cox, 546 Pa. 515, 686 A.2d 1279 to the 1279 ((1996).

1996). The

trial court has broad discretion in how it phrases its instructions to a a jury, so long as the law is

clearly, adequately and accurately presented to the jury for its consideration. Commonwealth v.

16

Gibson,553 Gibson, 553Pa.

Pa.648,

648,665,

665,720

720A.2d

A.2d473,

473,481

481( 1998)

(1998)(citing Commonwealthv.v.Hawkins, (citingCommonwealth Hawkins,549 549Pa.

Pa.

352,701 352, 701A.2d A.2d492

492( 1997),

(1997),cent.

cert.denied,

denied,523

523U.S.

U.S.1083,

1083,118

118S.Ct.

S.Ct.1535,

1535,140

140L.Ed.2d

L.Ed.2d685

685( 1998)).

(1998)).

Thelaw The lawisisclear clearthat

thatthe

the court's

court's charge

chargemust

mustbe

beread

readasas aawhole

wholeand

andnot

notininisolated

isolatedportions.

portions.

Commonwealthv.v.Sandusky, Commonwealth 203A.3d Sandusky,203 A.3d1033,

1033,1098

1098(Pa.

(Pa.Super.2019), denied,216 appealdenied,

Super. 2019), appeal 216A.3d A.3d1029

1029

(Pa., July (Pa., July 24, 24, 2019);

2019); Commonwealth

Commonwealth v.v. Antidormi, Antidormi, 84

84 A.3d

A.3d 736,

736, 754

754 (Pa.Super.2014);

(Pa.Super.2014);

Commonwealthv.v. Garcia, Commonwealth Garcia, 847 847A.2d

A.2d67,

67,7373(Pa.Super.2004); Commonwealthv.v. Overby, (Pa.Super.2004); Commonwealth 575 Pa.

Overby, 575 Pa.

227,836 227, 836A.2d A.2d20,

20,2424(2003).

(2003). As

Asnoted

notedby ourSuperior

byour SuperiorCourt:

Court:

"[a]jury "[a] jury charge will be charge will be deemed deemed erroneous

erroneous only

only ififthe

the charge

charge asas aa

whole is inadequate, not clear or has a tendency to whole is inadequate, not clear or has atendency to mislead or con-mislead or confuse , rather fuse, rather than

than clarify,

clarify, aa material

material issue.

issue. AA charge

charge isis considered

considered

adequate unless the jury was palpably misled by what adequate unless the jury was palpably misled by what the trial the trialjudge judge

saidor said orthere

thereisis an

anomission

omissionwhich

whichisistantamount

tantamounttoto fundamental fundamental er- error

. Consequently, the trial court has wide discretion ror. Consequently, the trial court has wide discretion in fashioning in fashioning instructions." Commonwealth jury instructions." jury Commonwealth v.• Thomas,Thomas, 904 904 A.2d

A.2d 964,

964, 970

970

(Pa.Super.2006) (citations (Pa.Super.2006) (citations omitted).omitted).

Thejury The instruction was jury instruction was appropriate according toto the appropriate according the testimony testimony presented duringthe presented during the trial, trial,

and counsel and counsel cannot cannotbe

be deemed

deemed ineffective

ineffectivefor

for failing

failingto

to object to the

objectto the charge.

charge. Once

Once again,

again, Hawkins

Hawkins

fails to fails to meet meet any burden of

any burden ofproof to sustain proofto sustain this

this claim,

claim, and

and itit isis without

without merit.

merit.

Assistance of

Ineffective Assistance Ineffective ofPCRA PCRA Counsel

Counsel

The standards The standards for

for an

an ineffective

ineffective assistance

assistance of

of counsel

counsel claim

claim were

were previously

previously presented

presented in

in

this opinion. this Hawkins complaint opinion. Hawkins in this complaint in this issue

issue isis that

that PCRA

PCRA counsel

counsel improperly

improperly submitted

submitted a

a Finley

Finley'

no-merit letter no-merit letter and and as

as such

such deprived him of

deprived him of his

his right to representation.

right to representation. Mr.

Mr. Hawkins

Hawkins fails

fails to

to

the specifics

identify the identify of this specifics of this claim.

claim. Once

Once more,

more, the

the undersigned would be

undersigned would be required to guess required to what

guess what

Appellant's complaints are and as such his Appellant's his failure failure to

to adequately identify, in in a

a concise manner, the

issues he issues he seeks seeks to

to pursue on appeal,

pursue on the undersigned appeal, the is impeded undersigned is in its impeded in its preparation of a preparation of a legal analysis legal analysis

4 4 Commonwealth v.v. Finley, Commonwealth Finley, 379 379 Pa.Super. 390, 550

Pa.Super. 390, 550 A.2d

A.2d 213

213 ((1988)

1988)

17

pertinenttoto those pertinent those issues.

issues. Commonwealth

Commonwealth vs.

vs. Dowling, 778 A.2d

Dowling, 778 A.2d 683,

683, 686

686(Pa.

(Pa.Super.2001);

Super. 2001);

Commonwealthv.v.Ray, Commonwealth 134A.3d Ray, 134 A.3d1109,

1109,1114

1114(Pa. Estateof Super. 2016); InInrereEstate (Pa.Super.2016); 757A.2d Daubert,757 ofDaubert, A.2d

962,963 962, 963(Pa.Super.2000).

(Pa.Super.2000). "When

"Whenaacourt

courthas

hastotoguess whatissues

guesswhat issuesan

anappellant

appellantisisappealing, that appealing,that

isisnot notenough enoughfor formeaningful

meaningfulreview."

review." Commonwealth

Commonwealthv.v.Butler, 756A.2d Butler,756 A.2d55,

55,5757(Pa.Super.2000)

(Pa.Super.2000)

(citingGiles (citing Gilesv.v. Douglas, 747A.2d Douglas,747 A.2d1236,

1236, 1237

1237(Pa.Super.2000)). Thisclaim (Pa.Super.2000)). This claimisiswithout withoutmerit.

merit.

Misidentification Misidentification

The law The law inin Pennsylvania Pennsylvania isis clear

clear that

that evidence

evidence of

ofan

an identification

identification of

ofa

a defendant

defendant by a

by a

witness will witness will be be admitted

admitted unless

unless the

the identification

identification isis the

the result

result of

of police misconduct.

police misconduct.

Commonwealth v.v. Spencer, Commonwealth 432 Pa.Super.

Spencer, 432 631, 639 Pa.Super. 631, 639 A.2d A.2d 820

820((1994).

1994). ItIt isis likewise likewise well-settled

well-settled

that where that where the the circumstances

circumstances demonstrate demonstrate an

an independent basis for independent basis for the the identification,

identification, even

even prepre

-

trial impermissibly trial impermissibly suggestive suggestive procedures will not procedures will not bar bar subsequent in-court identifications.

subsequent in-court identifications.

Commonwealthv.v. McGaghey, Commonwealth 510Pa.

MceGaghey, 510 Pa. 225,

225, 507

507A.2d

A.2d 357

357((1986). The central

1986). The central inquiry inreviewing inquiry in reviewing

the propriety the propriety of ofidentification

identification evidence

evidence isis whether

whether or

or not,

not, under

under the

the totality ofthe

totality of the circumstances, circumstances,

the identification the identification was was reliable.

reliable. Commonwealth

Commonwealth v.v. Kearney, 92 A.3d Kearney, 92 A.3d 51,

51, 65

65 (Pa.

(Pa.Super.2014).

Super. 2014).

"Suggestiveness in "Suggestiveness in the the identification

identification process

process isis but

but one

one factor

factor to

to be

be considered

considered in

in determining the

determining the

admissibility of admissibility of such such evidence

evidence and

and will

will not

not warrant

warrant exclusion

exclusion absent

absent other

other factors."

factors."

Commonwealth v.v. Moye, Commonwealth 836 A.2d Moye, 836 A.2d 973,

973, 976

976 (Pa.Super.2003),

(Pa.Super.2003), appeal 578 Pa.

denied, 578

appeal denied, Pa. 694, 694, 851

851

A.2d 142 A.2d 142 (2004).

(2004).

Appellant merely Appellant merely claims claims "scientific

"scientific research

research study

study after

after study

study revealed

revealed a

a troubling

troubling lack

lack of

of

reliability in reliability in eyewitness eyewitness identifications, identifications, from

from social

social science

science research

research to

to the

the view

view of

of actual

actual police

police

lineups, from lineups, from laboratory experiments experiments to DNA exonerations and finger print lifting..."

lifting ... " (Statement

(Statement

of Matters of Matters Complained Complained of

of on

on Appeal,

Appeal, p.

p. 4).

4). Hawkins

Hawkins neither

neither cites

cites these

these treatises

treatises nor

nor the

the testimony

from which from which a a misidentification

misidentification could

could be

be found

found in

in his

his case.

case. The

The failure

failure to

to develop this issue

develop this issue is

is fatal.

fatal.

18

Police Misconduct

Appellant next raises several alleged instances of police misconduct claiming these should

provide him acquittal of the the charges.

Single Suspect in Photo Display Display

Mr. Mr. Hawkins Hawkins claims

claims that

that "showing the

the defendant's

defendant's picture

picture singly

singly to

to a

a witness

witness violates

violates the

the

defendant's defendant's 14"'

14" Amendment's."

Amendment's." [sic]

[sic] (Statement

(Statement of

of Matters

Matters Complained

Complained of

of on

on Appeal,

Appeal, p.

p. 5).

5).

Appellant does does not inform

inform us

us to

to whom

whom the

the single

single picture

picture was

was shown,

shown, where

where in

in the

the testimony

testimony to

to

find the find the allegedly allegedly improper improper conduct,

conduct, nor

nor any

any statute,

statute, precedent, or authority precedent, or of any authority of nature for any nature for his

his

proposition. proposition. As noted As noted numerous

numerous times

times in

in this

this already too long

already too long opinion, what the guessing what

opinion, guessing the

defendant's defendant's complaint complaint isis not

not acceptable

acceptable and

and the

the issue

issue isis waived.

waived. Commonwealth

Commonwealth vs.

vs. Dowling,

Dowling, 778

778

A.2d A.2d 683, 683, 686 686 (Pa. Super. 2001); Commonwealth (Pa.Super.2001); Commonwealth v.v. Ray, Ray, 134

134 A.3d

A.3d 1109,

1109, 1114

1114 (Pa. Super. 2016); In (Pa.Super.2016); In

re re Estate Estate ofDaubert, of Daubert, 757

757 A.2d 962, 963

A.2d962, 963 (Pa. Super. 2000); Commonwealth (Pa.Super.2000); Commonwealth v.v. Butler, Butler, 756

756 A.2d

A.2d 55,

55,

57 57 (Pa.Super.2000)

(Pa.Super.2000) (citing (citing Giles

Giles v.v. Douglas,

Douglas, 747

747 A.2d

A.2d 1236,

1236, 1237

1237 (Pa. Super. 2000)). Again, (Pa.Super.2000)). Again, this this

claim claim fails.

fails.

Falsification of Falsification documents ofdocuments

Appellant Appellant contends contends Detectives

Detectives Hesser

Hesser and

and Santamala

Santamala falsified

falsified documents,

documents, citing

citing the

the trial

trial

transcript transcript from from February

February 10,

10, 2015

2015 at

at pages

pages 85

85 and

and 86

86 and

and Andre

Andre Richardson's

Richardson's statement

statement of

of

November November 13, 13, 2013.

2013. (Statement

(Statement of

of Matters

Matters Complained

Complained of

of on

on Appeal,

Appeal, p.p. 5).

5). No

No description

description of

of

the the alleged alleged falsification falsification isis put

put forth

forth by

by the

the defendant.

defendant. Apparently,

Apparently, Mr.

Mr. Hawkins

Hawkins expects

expects this

this court

court

to present to presenthis his argument

argument concerning

concerningthis

this claim

claimfor

forhim,

him, yet again. His

yetagain. His failure

failure to

to adequately

adequately identify,

identify,

in in a a concise concise manner, manner, the

the issues

issues he

he seeks

seeks to

to pursue

pursue on

on appeal,

appeal, the

the undersigned

undersigned isis impeded

impeded in

in its

its

preparation of a preparation of a legal legal analysis

analysis pertinent to those pertinent to those issues.

issues. Commonwealth

Commonwealth vs.

vs. Dowling, 778 A.2d

Dowling, 778 A.2d

19

686 (Pa.

683, 686 Super. 2001); Commonwealth v. Ray, (Pa.Super.2001); Ray, 134 A.3d 1109, 1114 1114 (Pa.Super.2016);

(Pa.Super.2016); In

In re

of Daubert, 757 A.2d 962, 963 Estate of 963 (Pa.Super.2000).

(Pa.Super.2000). "When a

a court has to guess what issues

an appellant is appealing, that is not enough for meaningful review." Commonwealth v. Butler,

756 A.2d 55, 57 57 (Pa.Super.2000)

(Pa.Super.2000) (citing 1237 (Pa.Super.2000)).

(citing Giles v. Douglas, 747 A.2d 1236, 1237 (Pa.Super.2000)).

This claim is without merit.

Convincing Witness to Frame Defendant

Hawkins claims "Detective Edward Oleyn convinced the witness Andre Richardson to

frame the defendant for the murder, according to Kelsey Dark, who told the defendant's trial

counsel. See: Andre Richardson statement on 10-26-13." (Statement (Statement of Matters Complained of

on Appeal, p. 5). The defendant has provided no statement, or evidence of any manner from trial

counsel to corroborate this claim. Furthermore, aareview of Mr. Richardson's statement of October

26, 2013, fails to substantiate the claim. Once again, Appellant has failed to meet any burden of

proof to bear out this claim and as such it is without merit.

Sufficiency of

of the Evidence the

Defendant's next claim of error is that there was insufficient evidence as aamatter oflaw of law to

find him guilty guilty of murder of the first degree. When evaluating aaclaim of insufficiency of the

evidence, we must determine determine "whether the evidence is sufficient to prove every element of the

crime beyond aareasonable doubt." Commonwealth v.

v. Hughes, 521 Pa. 423, 555 A.2d 1264, 1267

(1989). Further, the evidence must be viewed viewed "in

"in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth

as the verdict winner and, accept as true all evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom upon

which, if believed, the fact finder properly could have based its verdict." Id. "Any "Any doubts

regarding aadefendant's guilt may be resolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence is so weak

and inconclusive that as a a matter of law no probability of fact may be drawn from the combined

20

circumstances." Commonwealth v. Thomas, 65 A.3d 939, 943 943 (Pa.Super.2013)

(Pa.Super.2013) (citing

(citing

Commonwealth v. Ratsamy, 594 Pa. 176, 934 A.2d 1233, 1236 n. 22(2007)).

(2007)).

Under aasufficiency of the evidence claim, "the Commonwealth may sustain its burden by

means of wholly circumstantial evidence; the entire trial record should be evaluated, and all evi-

dence received considered, whether or not the trial court's rulings thereon were correct; and the

trier of fact, while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the proof, is free to

believe all, part, or none of the evidence." Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 585 Pa. 547, 889 A.2d 501,

517 517 (2005)

(2005) (quoting (quoting Commonwealth v. Watkins, 577 Pa. 194, 843 A.2d 1203, 1211 1211 (2003)).

(2003)).

"Additionally, the evidence at trial need not preclude every possibility of innocence, and

the fact-finder is free to resolve any doubts regarding aadefendant's guilt unless the evidence is so

weak and inconclusive that as aamatter of law no probability of fact may be drawn from the com-

v. Bohonyi, 900 A.2d 877, 881-882 bined circumstances." Commonwealth • 881-882 (Pa.Super.2006)

(Pa.Super.2006) (quot-

(quot-

ing Commonwealth v. Love, 896 A.2d 1276, 1283 1283 (Pa.Super.2006)). evidence "is (Pa.Super.2006)). However, if the evidence

in contradiction to the physical facts, in contravention to human experience and the laws of nature,

then the evidence is insufficient as aamatter of law." Commonwealth v. Heater, 899 A.2d 1126,

1131 (Pa.Super.2006) 1131 (Pa.Super.2006) (quoting (quoting Commonwealth v. Widmer, 560 Pa. 308, 319, 744 A.2d 745, 751

(2000)).

A review of the record shows that this issue was raised on direct appeal, wherein the A

Superior Court affirmed the sufficiency as well as judgment of sentence. Commonwealth v.

Hawkins, 538 53 8 EDA 2015. As such, the claim has been previously litigated and meritless.

Weight of

of the Evidence

Defendant's last claim is that Andre Richardson's lack of credibility was such that his

evidence. (Statement

conviction was against the weight of the evidence. (Statement of Matters Complained of on

21

A claim that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence concedes that Appeal, p. 6). A

there is sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict. Commonwealth v. Widmer, 560 Pa. 308, 744

A.2d 745 745 (2000).

(2000). "[T]he "[T]he weight of the evidence is exclusively for the finder of fact who is free to

believe all, part, or none of the evidence and to determine the credibility of the witnesses."

Commonwealth. v. Marks, 704 A.2d 1095, 1098 (Pa.Superl997) Commonwealth (Pa.Superl 997) (citing ( citing Commonwealth v.

Simmons, 541 Pa. 211, 229, 662 A.2d 621, 630 630 ((1995)).

1995)). A

A defendant's request for aanew trial

based on the argument that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence will only be granted

when the verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to make the award of aanew trial imperative.

imperative.

Commonwealth v. Mason, 559 Pa. 500, 513, 741 A.2d 708, 715 715 ((1999);

1999); Commonwealth v. Auker,

521, 541, 681 A.2d 1305, 1316 545 Pa. 521,541,681 1316 ((1996).

1996).

Addressing the defendant's weight of the evidence argument, it must be noted that "[a]n

allegation that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence is addressed to the discretion of the

trial court." Commonwealth v. Rossetti, 863 A.2d 1185, 1191 1191 (Pa.Super.2004)

(Pa.Super.2004) (quoting

(quoting Common-

wealth v. Widmer, 560 Pa. 308, 744 A.2d 745, 751-752 (2000)).

745,751-752 (2000)). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court

has explained that appellate review of aaweight of the evidence claim is aareview of the exercise of

discretion, not aareview of the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of

the evidence. Id. "A motion for aanew trial on the grounds that the verdict is contrary to the weight "A

of the evidence, concedes that there is sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict. Thus, the trial

court is under no obligation to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner."

Commonwealth v. Dupre, 866 A.2d 1089, 1101 1101 (Pa.Super.2005)

(Pa.Super.2005) (quoting

(quoting Commonwealth v. Sul-

livan, 820 A.2d 795, 805-806 805-806 (Pa. Super. 2003), app.

(Pa.Super.2003), app, denied, 574 Pa. 773, 833 A.2d 143 (2003)

(2003)

((emphasis emphasis omitted). A A new trial should be awarded when the trial court believes the verdict was

against the weight of the evidence and resulted in aamiscarriage of justice. Commonwealth v.

22

Lloyd, 878 A.2d 867, 872 872 (Pa.Super.2005)

(Pa.Super.2005) (citing of Philadelphia, 507 Pa. 592, (citing Thompson v. City of

598, 493 A.2d 669, 672 672 ((1985)).

1985)). "Although a

a new trial should not be granted because of aamere

conflict in testimony or because the trial judge on the same facts would have arrived at aadifferent

conclusion, a a new trial should be awarded when the jury's verdict is so contrary to the evidence as

to shock one's sense of justice and the award of a a new trial is imperative so that right may be given

another opportunity to prevail." Id. (emphasis omitted). Stated another way, (emphasis way, "the evidence must

be so tenuous, vague and uncertain that the verdict shocks the conscience of the court." Common-

wealth v. Dupre, supra, 866 A.2d at 1102 1102 (quoting

(quoting Commonwealth v. Sullivan, supra, 820 A.2d at

805-806). 805-806). "The "The question the trial court must answer, in the sound exercise of its discretion, is

whether whether `'notwithstanding notwithstanding all the facts, certain facts are so clearly of greater weight that to ignore

them or to give them equal weight with all the facts is to deny justice."' Id. ( ( citing Commonwealth

v. Widmer, supra, 744 A.2d at 752). Because the trial judge heard and saw the evidence presented,

an appellate court will give the gravest consideration to the findings and reasons advanced by the

trial court court concerning a a weight of the evidence determination. Commonwealth v. Dupre, supra,

866 A.2d at 1102 1102 (citing

(citing Commonwealth v.v. Widmer, supra, 744 A.2d at 753).

753). "A

"A trial court's

exercise of discretion discretion in

in finding

finding that a

a verdict is

is or is

is not against the weight of the evidence is is `'one

one

of the least assailable reasons reasons for granting or denying a a new trial."' Commonwealth v. Dupre,

supra, supra, 866 866 A.2d A.2d at 1102

1102 (citing

( citing Commonwealth

Commonwealth v.v. Sullivan, Sullivan, supra, 820 A.2d at 806; Common-

wealth wealth v.v. Widmer, Widmer, supra,

supra, 744

744 A.2d

A.2d at

at 753).

753). When

When the weight of the evidence challenge is predi-

cated cated on on the the credibility of of testimony

testimony presented

presented at

at trial,

trial, appellate review of the the trial court's decision decision

is is extremely extremely limited.

limited. Commonwealth

Commonwealth v.v. Rossetti, Rossetti, supra,

supra, 863 A.2d at

at 1191

1191 (quoting

(quoting Commonwealth

Commonwealth

v. v. Hunter, Hunter, 381 381 Pa.Super.

Pa.Super. 606,

606, 554

554 A.2d

A.2d 550, 555 ((1989)).

550,555 1989)). "Generally, "Generally, unless

unless the

the evidence is

is so

23

unreliable and/or contradictory as to make any verdict based thereon pure conjecture, conjecture, these types

types

of claims are not cognizable on appellate review." Id.

Id

This court concludes that that the verdict

verdict was not contrary to not so contrary to the

the evidence as to

to shock one's

sense of justice, nor was it so tenuous, vague and uncertain that it shocks the conscience of the

court. To the contrary, the evidence in this case was compelling and substantial, and strongly court. strongly

supported supported the verdict.

verdict. This court observed Mr.

Mr Richardson

Richardson and

and finds

finds that

that he

he and his

his testimony

testimony

were credible.

credible. Accordingly, this claim of of the defendant is without merit.

merit

Accordingly, the the dismissal

dismissal of the

the defendant'

defendant Post- Conviction Relief Post-Conviction Relief Act petition petition should be

be

affirmed. affirmed

BY THE

THE COURT:

COURT

June 20, 2024 DATE: June

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

OF PENNSYLVANIA

COMMONWEALTH OF CRIMINAL TRIAL DIVISION DIVISION

V. 1177 EDA 2020 1177EDA 2020

QUYDEEM HAWKINS CP-51-CR-0002404-2014

Proof of Service

I I hereby certify that I I am on this day serving the foregoing Court's Court '

sOpinion upon the perper

-

son(s), and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of Pa.R.Crim.P. Pa.R.Crim.P 114:

114.

Defendant: Quydeem Hawkins LX-4505 S.C.I. s.CI. Greene 169 Progress Drive Waynesburg, PA 15370

Type of Service:

Service : ( ()Personal ) Personal (X)

(X) First Class Mail

Mail (()) Interoffice ()

( ) Other,

Other,please specify

District Attorney:

Attorney Lawrence Jonathan Goode, Esquire Appeals Unit District Attomey's

Attorney '

sOffice

33South Penn Square Philadelphia, PA 19107

Type of Service: O Personal ( )) First Class Mail (X)

()Personal (X) Interoffice O ( ) Other, please specify

Date: June 20, 20 ,2024

2024

gee,,n. djL•,

•

pk.9 qfl -O

id»Gies1..,I Allison M. O'Keefe, Law Clerk