J-S41029-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : ROYSCE HAYNES : : Appellant : No. 3170 EDA 2017
Appeal from the PCRA Order August 24, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0014368-2012, CP-51-CR-0014369-2012
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., OLSON, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED OCTOBER 10, 2018
Appellant, Roysce Haynes, appeals from the order entered on August
24, 2017 in the Criminal Division of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
County that dismissed, without a hearing, his petition filed pursuant to the
Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
This Court previously summarized the historical facts in this case as
follows:
During the afternoon of September 10, 2012, Philadelphia Probation and Parole Officers Shondell Williams and Evan Moore– Mathis visited [Appellant]. As they approached his apartment, they saw him sitting on the steps outside the apartment entrance. He appeared stunned and was somewhat unresponsive to questions. His head was lowered and when asked whether the police should be summoned, he said yes. N.T. April 29, 2014, pp. 81–87.
____________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S41029-18
Philadelphia Police Officer Jonathan Ransom was called to [a residence along] Chelton Avenue in the Germantown section of Philadelphia. There he encountered [Appellant], who told him that he had been in an argument with his girlfriend, that the argument had become physical, and that he had choked her. When Officer Ransom went inside [Appellant’s] apartment, he saw the decedent, Atiya Perry, lying on the floor and bleeding from the head. She had no signs of life. Officer Ransom noticed a bloody towel lying on the floor near her head. Id. at 32–46.
Dr. Marlin Osbourne, Assistant Medical Examiner, performed the autopsy on the decedent and determined that her death was a homicide achieved by strangulation. [The decedent] also had small lacerations on her left cheek. Dr. Osbourne determined that based on the size of the fetus in her uterus, she had been pregnant for seven weeks at the time of her death. Id. at 113–124.
Detective Edward Tolliver took a statement from [Appellant] the day of the killing. In it, [Appellant] acknowledged killing the decedent. He said that the decedent had been hitting him with a closed fist on the side of his head and that she had tried to use pepper spray against him, and that he choked her. He also said that the decedent had told him that she was pregnant, but that he did not believe her. Id. at 139–157. Detective Tracey Byard searched the apartment in the immediate aftermath of the murder. He did not find any mace or pepper spray anywhere in the apartment. Id. at 189. Prenatal vitamins and magazines about pregnancy were found in the apartment. Id. at 68–69.
Commonwealth v. Haynes, 125 A.3d 800, 802 (Pa. Super. 2015), appeal
denied, 140 A.3d 12 (Pa. 2016).
Appellant was arrested and charged with murder and murder of an
unborn child on September 10, 2012. Following trial, a jury found Appellant
guilty of third-degree murder for killing Atiya Perry and third-degree murder
for the death of her unborn child. On July 1, 2014, the trial court imposed an
aggregate sentence of 35 to 70 years’ incarceration. Both Appellant and the
Commonwealth appealed the judgment of sentence. On October 5, 2015, this
-2- J-S41029-18
Court affirmed the judgment and our Supreme Court denied further review on
June 1, 2016.
Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition on September 29, 2016.
Thereafter, appointed counsel filed an amended petition on May 10, 2017. On
July 13, 2017, pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907, the PCRA court issued notice of
its intent to dismiss Appellant’s petition without a hearing. Appellant did not
respond to the dismissal notice and the court denied the petition on August
24, 2017. This timely appeal followed.
Appellant raises a single question for our review:
Did the [PCRA c]ourt err when it dismissed [Appellant’s] PCRA [p]etition without a [h]earing?
Appellant’s Brief at 3.
We have carefully reviewed the certified record, the submissions of the
parties, and the opinion of the PCRA court. Based upon our review, we
conclude that Appellant’s claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel is meritless
and that he failed to raise a genuine issue of fact that required an evidentiary
hearing to resolve. We further find that the PCRA court has adequately and
accurately addressed the issues raised by Appellant in the context of this
appeal. For this reason, we adopt the PCRA court’s opinion as our own and
direct the parties to include a copy of that opinion with all future filings relating
to our disposition of this appeal.
Order affirmed.
-3- J-S41029-18
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 10/10/18
-4- Circulated 09/19/2018 02:46 PM
RECEIVED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AUG 2 42017 FIRST .JUDICIAL DISTRJCT OFPENNSYLV A.NIA CRIMINAL tRJAL DIVISION .. . . PORA Unit CP Criminal Listings
COMMONWEAL TH ()FPE1'iNSYL VANIA : CP-5 l-CR-0014368.2012 .: CP�51-CR-0014J69-2012 Y.
ROYSCEHAYNES
.ORD.ER AND OPINION
McDermott, J. Augus(2412017
.Procedural History
On September I 0, 20;12, the Petitioner, Roysce Haynes, was arrested and charged with
Murder and Abuse ofa Corpse in CP-51-CR.,001436.8-2012, and Criminal Homicide of all
Unborn Child in GP-'51-CR-0014369--2012.. On April 30, 2014, after a consolidated trial before
this Court, ajury convicted the Petitioner of Third-Degree Murder in CP-5l-CR-0014368-2012
and Criminal Homicide of an Unborn Child in CP-SJ.,.CR-0014369.:2012. On July l , 2014, this
Court imposed a sentence of twenty to forty years imprisonment for Third-Degree.Murder and a
consecutive fifteen to thirty years for CriminalHomicide ofan Unborn Child, for a total sentence
ofthirty-five to seventy years ofimprisonment,
The Petitioner appealed and on October 5., 20 l 51 the Superior Court affirmed his.
judgment of sentence. On June I, 2016, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied tile Petitioner's
Petition for Allowance of Appeal.
.,.·· 1. . ---· CP-51-CR-0014366-2012 CQtnm•.v ·Haynes. RO,$CC .tjpinion:
APPENDIX - LOWER CPURT O;IN�ll��ijJJIIIIII '
··················-·· ··· ··············-··"·"·····--········· ···---···-·--····-··--·------·..·--···-·····------------ ----···-···--·------···-----····-·····-··--··· ·---······--·········· ... ······-··---·-· On September 29, 2016, the Petitioner filed a timefyprd se Pest-Conviction Relief Act
("PCRA ") petition, his first. On May 10, 2017, through .appointed counsel, the. Petitioner filed
an Amended Petition. Ori July 12, 2017., the Commonwealth filed its response .. On July 13,
2017,. after independent review, . this Court.found the Petitioner's. claims meritless and issued a .
Notice of Intent to Dismiss pursuant to Pa.RiCrim.P. �07. The Petitioner did not respond to this
Court's 907 Notice:
On direct appeal, the Superior Court summarized the relevant facts .as follows:
During lhe afternoon of September 10, 2012, Philadelphia Probation and Parole Officers Shondell Williams and Evan.Moore- Mathis visited [the Petitioner, Roysce Haynes].
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S41029-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : ROYSCE HAYNES : : Appellant : No. 3170 EDA 2017
Appeal from the PCRA Order August 24, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0014368-2012, CP-51-CR-0014369-2012
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., OLSON, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED OCTOBER 10, 2018
Appellant, Roysce Haynes, appeals from the order entered on August
24, 2017 in the Criminal Division of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
County that dismissed, without a hearing, his petition filed pursuant to the
Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
This Court previously summarized the historical facts in this case as
follows:
During the afternoon of September 10, 2012, Philadelphia Probation and Parole Officers Shondell Williams and Evan Moore– Mathis visited [Appellant]. As they approached his apartment, they saw him sitting on the steps outside the apartment entrance. He appeared stunned and was somewhat unresponsive to questions. His head was lowered and when asked whether the police should be summoned, he said yes. N.T. April 29, 2014, pp. 81–87.
____________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S41029-18
Philadelphia Police Officer Jonathan Ransom was called to [a residence along] Chelton Avenue in the Germantown section of Philadelphia. There he encountered [Appellant], who told him that he had been in an argument with his girlfriend, that the argument had become physical, and that he had choked her. When Officer Ransom went inside [Appellant’s] apartment, he saw the decedent, Atiya Perry, lying on the floor and bleeding from the head. She had no signs of life. Officer Ransom noticed a bloody towel lying on the floor near her head. Id. at 32–46.
Dr. Marlin Osbourne, Assistant Medical Examiner, performed the autopsy on the decedent and determined that her death was a homicide achieved by strangulation. [The decedent] also had small lacerations on her left cheek. Dr. Osbourne determined that based on the size of the fetus in her uterus, she had been pregnant for seven weeks at the time of her death. Id. at 113–124.
Detective Edward Tolliver took a statement from [Appellant] the day of the killing. In it, [Appellant] acknowledged killing the decedent. He said that the decedent had been hitting him with a closed fist on the side of his head and that she had tried to use pepper spray against him, and that he choked her. He also said that the decedent had told him that she was pregnant, but that he did not believe her. Id. at 139–157. Detective Tracey Byard searched the apartment in the immediate aftermath of the murder. He did not find any mace or pepper spray anywhere in the apartment. Id. at 189. Prenatal vitamins and magazines about pregnancy were found in the apartment. Id. at 68–69.
Commonwealth v. Haynes, 125 A.3d 800, 802 (Pa. Super. 2015), appeal
denied, 140 A.3d 12 (Pa. 2016).
Appellant was arrested and charged with murder and murder of an
unborn child on September 10, 2012. Following trial, a jury found Appellant
guilty of third-degree murder for killing Atiya Perry and third-degree murder
for the death of her unborn child. On July 1, 2014, the trial court imposed an
aggregate sentence of 35 to 70 years’ incarceration. Both Appellant and the
Commonwealth appealed the judgment of sentence. On October 5, 2015, this
-2- J-S41029-18
Court affirmed the judgment and our Supreme Court denied further review on
June 1, 2016.
Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition on September 29, 2016.
Thereafter, appointed counsel filed an amended petition on May 10, 2017. On
July 13, 2017, pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907, the PCRA court issued notice of
its intent to dismiss Appellant’s petition without a hearing. Appellant did not
respond to the dismissal notice and the court denied the petition on August
24, 2017. This timely appeal followed.
Appellant raises a single question for our review:
Did the [PCRA c]ourt err when it dismissed [Appellant’s] PCRA [p]etition without a [h]earing?
Appellant’s Brief at 3.
We have carefully reviewed the certified record, the submissions of the
parties, and the opinion of the PCRA court. Based upon our review, we
conclude that Appellant’s claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel is meritless
and that he failed to raise a genuine issue of fact that required an evidentiary
hearing to resolve. We further find that the PCRA court has adequately and
accurately addressed the issues raised by Appellant in the context of this
appeal. For this reason, we adopt the PCRA court’s opinion as our own and
direct the parties to include a copy of that opinion with all future filings relating
to our disposition of this appeal.
Order affirmed.
-3- J-S41029-18
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 10/10/18
-4- Circulated 09/19/2018 02:46 PM
RECEIVED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AUG 2 42017 FIRST .JUDICIAL DISTRJCT OFPENNSYLV A.NIA CRIMINAL tRJAL DIVISION .. . . PORA Unit CP Criminal Listings
COMMONWEAL TH ()FPE1'iNSYL VANIA : CP-5 l-CR-0014368.2012 .: CP�51-CR-0014J69-2012 Y.
ROYSCEHAYNES
.ORD.ER AND OPINION
McDermott, J. Augus(2412017
.Procedural History
On September I 0, 20;12, the Petitioner, Roysce Haynes, was arrested and charged with
Murder and Abuse ofa Corpse in CP-51-CR.,001436.8-2012, and Criminal Homicide of all
Unborn Child in GP-'51-CR-0014369--2012.. On April 30, 2014, after a consolidated trial before
this Court, ajury convicted the Petitioner of Third-Degree Murder in CP-5l-CR-0014368-2012
and Criminal Homicide of an Unborn Child in CP-SJ.,.CR-0014369.:2012. On July l , 2014, this
Court imposed a sentence of twenty to forty years imprisonment for Third-Degree.Murder and a
consecutive fifteen to thirty years for CriminalHomicide ofan Unborn Child, for a total sentence
ofthirty-five to seventy years ofimprisonment,
The Petitioner appealed and on October 5., 20 l 51 the Superior Court affirmed his.
judgment of sentence. On June I, 2016, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied tile Petitioner's
Petition for Allowance of Appeal.
.,.·· 1. . ---· CP-51-CR-0014366-2012 CQtnm•.v ·Haynes. RO,$CC .tjpinion:
APPENDIX - LOWER CPURT O;IN�ll��ijJJIIIIII '
··················-·· ··· ··············-··"·"·····--········· ···---···-·--····-··--·------·..·--···-·····------------ ----···-···--·------···-----····-·····-··--··· ·---······--·········· ... ······-··---·-· On September 29, 2016, the Petitioner filed a timefyprd se Pest-Conviction Relief Act
("PCRA ") petition, his first. On May 10, 2017, through .appointed counsel, the. Petitioner filed
an Amended Petition. Ori July 12, 2017., the Commonwealth filed its response .. On July 13,
2017,. after independent review, . this Court.found the Petitioner's. claims meritless and issued a .
Notice of Intent to Dismiss pursuant to Pa.RiCrim.P. �07. The Petitioner did not respond to this
Court's 907 Notice:
On direct appeal, the Superior Court summarized the relevant facts .as follows:
During lhe afternoon of September 10, 2012, Philadelphia Probation and Parole Officers Shondell Williams and Evan.Moore- Mathis visited [the Petitioner, Roysce Haynes]. As they approached his apartment, they saw him sitting on the steps outside the apartment entrance. He appeared stunned and was. somewhat · unresponsive to questions. His head was lowered and when· asked whether the. police should be summoned, he said yes. . Philadelphia Police Officer Jonathan Ransom was called to 850 Chelton Avenue in.the Germantown section of Philadelphia. There he encountered· [the Petitioner], who told. him that he had been in an .argurnent with his girlfriend, that the argument had become physical, and that he had choked her. When Officer Ransom went inside [the PetitionerJ's apartment, he saw the decedent AtiyaPerry, lying on the floor and bleeding from the head. She had no signs of life'. Officer Ransom noticed a bloody towel lying onthe floor near her head. . Dr: Marlin Osbourne, Assistant Medical Examiner, performed the autopsy on the decedent and determined that her death was a homicide achieved by strangulation. [The decedent] also had small lacerations on her left cheek. Dr. Osbourne determined. that based on the sizeof.the.fetus in her uterus, shehadbeen pregnantfor seven weeks at the time of herdeath, . . . Detective Edward Tolliver took astatement from [the Petitioner] the day of the killing. In. it, [the Petitioner] acknowledged ki Hing the decedent. He said that the decedent had been. hitting him. with .a closed fist on the side ofhis head and that.she had tried to use pepper spray against him, and that he choked her. He also said that the decedent had told him that she was pregnant; but that he did not believe her. Detective Tracey Byard searched the apartment in the immediate aftermath of the· murder. He did not find any mace or pepper spray anywhere in the. apartment, Prenatal vitamins and magazines about-pregnancy were found in the apartment.
Commonwealth v. Haynes, l 25 A.Jd 8.00, 802 (Pa. Super, 2015).
Discussion
The Petitioner raises a single issue for review, alleging that trial counsel was-ineffective for failing to challenge the admissibility of his confession to. police. Specifically, in his pro se
petition, the Petitioner admits that.officers read him his Miranda rights prior to taking his statement, but.argues that Miranda wasvemployedillegally" and was part ofan "accusatory
ruse." Petitioner's Pro Se Petition at 6. The Petitioner further alleges that detectives "suggested
that[he was] notgetting an attorney." Id. Though the Petitioner merely claims that.trial counsel
was. ineffective in his Amended Petition, he goes on to argue, contradictorily.Jn an attached
Memorandum of Law1 that "he was.not given his Miranda warnings" and that he "wanted an
attorney Jresent at the time he was being questioned but no attorney was· provided, thus rendering the statement something less than knowing, intelligent and voluntary." Petitioner's
May I 0, 2017 Memorandum of Law at 6:
To warrant relief based on an ineffectiveness claim. a petitioner must show that such ineffectiveness "in the circumstances of the particular case, so undermined the truth-determining
process that no reliable adjudication of guilt o:r innocence could have taken place.
Commonwealth v. Bardo, l05 A.3.d 678� 684. (Pa,.2014); 4.2 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(Z)(ii). Counsel is
presumed to have rendered effective assistance. Commonwealth v, Weiss, 81 AJd 767, 783 (Pa.
2013) (cirtne Commonwea/thv.Sepu/v(!da,55A.Jd1108,.l tf7 (P.a. 2012)).
To overcome the presumption, the Petitioner has to satisfy the performance and prejudice
test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U .S, 668 (1984). The. Supreme Court of
I The Petitiener titlc.s. his.Memorandum of Law as a "Letter Brief." Pennsylvania has-applied the ·st rick/and test by looking to three elements, whether (I); the.
underlying claim has arguable .. merit; (2) no reasonable basis existed for counsel's action . .. or. •
'failure to -�ct;·and (3) the petitioner has shown that. he suffered prejudice asa result of counsel's.
lapse, i.e .., (hat there isa reasonable probability that.the result of the proceeding would have been
different. Commonwealth v. Pierce, 527'.A.2d 973, 975 (Pa. 1987). Ifa claim faiis under any
necessary element ofthe, �irickl.a11d!Pierc� test, the court may proceed to that. element first,
Commonwealth v, Bennett, 57 A.3.d 1185, I I 95....-1196 (Pa.2011.) .. Counsel. will not be.deemed.
. ineffective for fai Ung to raise a rneritless .cl aim; Com monwealth ,,.. Rivera, ·1 08 A -,3 d 7:79 ,. 78-9
(Pa. 2014) (citing Commonwealth v. Jones, .. 912 A.id 26a, 278 (Pa. 2006)).
In hisMemorandum -oft.aw attached-to his.Amended.. Petition, the ..Petitioner argues that
. his statement confessing to stra·n_gling the decedent during a fight would have been suppressed, if
challenged, becauselaw enforcement authorities-failed to Mirandize him andprbvide him with
an.attorneyprior to the interrogation. ThePetitioner argues thatthe additional evidence
presented against himwas weakrendering-trial counsel's failure to challengehighlyprejudicial.
Whenapetitioner asserts .ineffective assistance of counsel based upon the failureto pursue a
suppression motion, proofof the: merit of the underlying suppression claim is necessary to
demonstrate Inetfecnve assistance .. Commonwealth _v: Warley, rsz A.3d l0":34, 1044·.(�a. Super.
2016) (cittng Commonwealth' v. Metzger, 441 A:2d 1225, 1228 (Pa Super. l-9S 1)).
A waiver of Miranda rights. is· valid.wherethe suspect- is aware of the generalnature of
the transaction. giving rise to theinvestigation. Commonwealth. v, Johnson, 160 A}d 127, 1J8
(Pa. 20°1-7). A Petitioner is presumed competent to waive Miranda. rights, and he pears the
burden . toprove incornpetencebya .preponderance of the evidence. Commonwealih·v..}Vatkins,
J 0.8 A.Jq 692, 703"(Pa. ibM). In deciding whethera confession was involuntary, courts mus!
4·
-·----··..··········--- determine whether. the interrogation was so manipulative or coercive that it deprived the
petitioner ofhis ability to make. a free. and unconstrained decision. Commonwealth v; Phillstin,
53. A.3d 1, .1 S (Pa. 2012) (citing Commonwealth». Templin, 795 A.2d 959,. 966 (Pa. 2002)}.
In his prose petition, the Petitioner claims that the Miranda warning he received was too
ambiguous to understand, and that during the course of the interview, police implied that he
would notbe able to communicate with an attorney: The Petitioner does not allege anything
beyond this. bald assertion. On July 13? 2017,.during argument before this Court, the. Petitioner,
through counsel, stated that an evidentiary hearing was necessary so this Court could make a
credibility determination between himself and the interrogating.officer. N.T. 7/13/2017 at 4... s.
An evidentiary hearing is not meant to function asa fishing expedition for possible
evidence that may support a claim. of ineffectiveness. Commonwealth v; Sneed, 45 kJd 1096,
l 1J6 (Pa. 2012)(cilingCom.monw�q/ih v. Scott, 752 A.2d 871: 877 n, 8 (Pa. 20.0Q)). The fact
that there is a possibility, however slim, that this Court could find the police interrogators
statement incredible-after an evidentiary hearing is not sufficient to satisfy his burden of proving.
ineffec ti veness.
Although the Petitioner claims that the warnings were ambiguous, he fails to explain
which partof his Miranda waiver was ambiguous or incomprehensible. The Mtrandawarmngs
contained in the standard police.form, as read and signed by the Petitioner, meets the constitutional standards necessary to evidence the Petitioner's waiver of'his rights. The' form
clearly and unequivocally explained that thePetitioner had the right to remain silent, the right to
an attorney, and the rightto stopthe interrogation at any time. See Commonwealth's Trial
Exhibit C-12. This evidence shows thatthe Petitioner elected to. speak to detectives Without an
attorney present. The evidence presented at trial indicates that the Petitioner wasproperly Mirandized and
was aware of, but failed to invoke, his rightto counsel. Detective Edward Tolliverinterviewed
thf Petitioneron September 10, :2,012 arid waspresentwhen the Petitioner reviewed.answered,
and signed a written Miranda waiver form. Tolliver testified that, on the Miranda waiver form,
the Petitioner indicated that he knew of his right to. remain silent, that he did. not wish to express
that right, that he did not want to speak to a.lawyer despite his constitutional right to do so, .and
thathe answered each question of'h is own free will, wi tho tit any threats or promises having been
made to him. N:T. 4/29/2014 at 142,..149; s�e Commonwealth's TrialExhibit C-12, attached as
«Ex.hibit A.'" Detective Tolliver observed the Petitioner write hisinitials nextto each question on
the waiver form, sign each ()age of his. statement, and attest that the facts set forth in his
statement were true. Id. at.l 43-147: According to Detective Tolliver; the Petitioner willingly
continued to communicate with detectives after being read his rights. Id. at 171--1'72·.
The Amended Petit ion and its attached Memorandum of Law fail ta develop these
allegations further. Instead: the Petitioner claims that Detectives never gave the Petitioner.
Miranda warnings, despite thePetitioner's contrary assertion in his prose petition. Further,
while the Petitioner states that he wanted an attorney but was never provided one, he fails to
explicitly assert that he. ever invoked his right to an attorney, or thatpolice detectives denied him
access to an attorney after such and invocation, These bald, contradictory cJaims fail to
sufficiently raise the issue that detectives didnot provide proper Miranda warnings or that the
Petitioner invoked, and was denied, his right to counsel. The Petitioner's claim is too
underdeveloped to warrant an evidentiary hearing; ·
The Petitioner cannot demonstrate prejudice, as even if this Court had suppressed bis
police statement; the evidence contained therein would have been.presented to the.jury. The
6 contents of the Petitioner' s police statement were .corrsborated by Officer Ransom's testimony;
which recounted. the Petitioner's spontaneous, non-custodial.admission that he choked the
decedent after ari argument between the.two became physical. N.T.4/29/2014 at36. Officer
Ransom discovered the. decedent's body inside the Petitioner's home. Id. at 37; Officer
Ransom's testimony alone was sufficient to establish that the Petitioner strangled the decedent to
death: Finally, trial counsel had a strategic reason to employ the Petitioner's statement, as it
provided the foundation for his manslaughter defense, which the i.fry ultimately rejected. Id at
199-200; N'.T. 4/30/2014 at 28,31-32, 36-37, 41-43.
The Petitioner's claim is meritless,
For the foregoing reasons; the petition is hereby DISMISSED -. The Petitioner is hereby:
notified that he has thirty (30) days from .the date of this Order and Opinion tofile an appeal with
the Superior Court.
BY THE COURT
Barbara-A. McDermott, J.
·-------·····-····----·"""'"·······-.. · -·-···..···-·---··-