Com. v. Hawkins, Q.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: September 8, 2025
• Docket: 2089 EDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished

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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37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

-2- 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).

-3- 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

-4- 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

-5- 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

-6- 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

-7- 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

-8- 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 de- jury

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).

2 2 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 stand- stand-

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).

3 3 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 verdict- verdict-

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 de- de-

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 after- after-

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,

4 4 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

5 5 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 evi- prosecution concealed evidence; (2) which was either exculpatory evidence or impeachment evi- dence 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).

6 6 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

7 7 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

8 8 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).

9 9 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." Common- defendant such that the jurors could not weigh the evidence and render atrue verdict." Common-

10 10 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 prose- cutor'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 yourdelibera- own recollection and evaluation of the tions and not mine or counsels'. evidence during your delibera- tions 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).

11 11 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,

12 12 756 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 Strick- overcome 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-

13 13 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." Com- it." 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.

14 14 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.

15 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 con- fuse, 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- er- ror. 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)

16 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 pre- pre-

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.

17 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

18 18 686 (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

19 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

20 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.

21 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

22 22 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

23 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 per- per- 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