Com. v. Snider, L.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: August 25, 2025
• Docket: 104 WDA 2025
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S24027-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : LAMONT CARLOS SNIDER : : Appellant : No. 104 WDA 2025

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered December 20, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-25-CR-0003155-2019

BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and LANE, J.

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED: AUGUST 25, 2025

Lamont Snider appeals from the order dismissing his Post Conviction

Relief Act (“PCRA”) petition. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. He claims his

trial counsel was ineffective. We affirm.

The facts of this case were previously summarized as follows:

At trial, the victim, Rashod Crockett, a State Prison Corrections Officer who was off duty at the time of the incident, testified that he and a companion went to several bars on the evening of October 5-6, 2019 to celebrate his birthday. While at Scooter’s bar in the early morning hours of October 6, 2019, the victim and [Snider] were involved in verbal argument. The argument escalated to the point where both individuals threw punches. After the altercation, the victim left the bar and went home, but returned to the bar about 10 minutes later to check on his companion who had fallen asleep outside the bar.

[Snider], his cousin, and a friend were in the parking lot when the victim arrived back at the bar’s parking lot. Another argument ensued, and [Snider] acted aggressively and told the victim[,] “I’m about to fuck you up.” J-S24027-25

[Snider’s] friend, Deverich Ohmer, testified that he saw the victim get out of his car with his hand behind his back where a concealed weapon might be hidden and yelled out that he thought the victim had a gun. Ohmer never actually saw the victim with a gun or any other weapon, however. Ohmer further testified that the victim said[,] “[N]ah, nah, nah, I don’t got a gun[,]” and immediately started swinging into the group where [Snider] was standing and hit [Snider] hard.

The victim punched [Snider], and a scuffle ensued. During the scuffle, [Snider] stabbed the victim. When he realized he had been stabbed, the victim tried to get away; he ran away, but [Snider] chased him. The victim fell, and [Snider] stood over top of him and stabbed him several more times. [Snider] then got into a vehicle and left the scene. The victim did not have a knife or a weapon on his person that evening, nor did the victim have a gun in his car.

The victim sustained several stab wounds to his body. Wounds on forearms were so deep that blood would spurt out with each pulse. The pants and the shirt the victim was wearing that night had several holes in them from where the knife had entered.

Patrolman Michael Attalla of the Erie Police Department responded to the scene in response to a 911 call. He testified that there were people huddled around a male, rendering aid to a man who was lying on the ground. Patrolman [Attalla] observed multiple stab wounds and noticed that the victim was bleeding profusely.

That same evening/early morning, the victim [w]as taken by ambulance to UPMC Hamot hospital. The victim stayed in the hospital for over a week and required surgery for his wounds. Medical records for the victim indicated that he required an [exploratory laparotomy] surgery and a small bowel repair for his stab wounds. The victim had multiple stab wounds to his chest and torso, resulting in a lacerated diaphragm and requiring the small bowel repair, and also suffered stab wounds to his right posterior, and arms. Two nerves in his arms were severed as a result of the incident.

-2- J-S24027-25

[Snider] was also injured as a result of the altercation. Medical records indicate he suffered a laceration on his left hand and a fracture above his left eye which was apparently caused by the victim’s punch when the fight first started in the parking lot.

[Snider] was interviewed by police several days after the incident. In his interview, [Snider] denied having a knife or knowing who had a knife on the night in question. [Snider] stated that he did not know how the victim had gotten stabbed seven times. [Snider] did not specifically tell the police that he acted in self-defense in the altercation.

Trial Ct. Op., filed Feb. 16, 2022, at 2-4 (citations to trial transcript omitted;

“Mr.” omitted throughout).

At trial, the victim testified that he wore his prison guard uniform to the

bar that evening. N.T., July 13, 2021, at 5-7. Snider’s counsel questioned the

victim about having stopped at three bars that evening and consumed

numerous alcoholic drinks, and distinguished his trial testimony from his

testimony at the preliminary hearing. Id. at 7-11. The victim admitted that

while intoxicated he went home, changed cars, and drove back to the scene.

Id. at 18, 22. Counsel reviewed the video of the incident with the victim, and

the victim agreed that it showed him taking off his coat and attempting to

push someone out of the way. Id. at 16, 20. The victim also admitted to

throwing the first punch. Id. at 20.

The Commonwealth admitted into evidence the victim’s medical records

from that evening. Those records included the following:

Patient states that he was standing outside of a bar, when he was suddenly assaulted by an individual with a knife, stating he was stabbed multiple times in the abdomen as well as his back. . . . Patient is a corrections officer and is unaware of who assaulted him.

-3- J-S24027-25

Brief in Support of Supplemental PCRA Petition at Exh. 1. Counsel did not use

the records on cross-examination of the victim.

A jury convicted Snider of criminal attempted murder, aggravated

assault, and possession of an instrument of crime.1 The court sentenced

Snider to a term of 10½ to 21 years’ incarceration. Snider appealed and we

affirmed his judgment of sentence. See Commonwealth v. Snider, 287 A.3d

880, 2022 WL 12196947 (Pa. Super. filed Oct. 21. 2022) (unpublished mem.)

. In May 2023, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied his petition for

allowance of appeal.

In April 2024, Snider filed the instant, timely PCRA petition. The court

appointed PCRA counsel who filed a supplemental pleading. At an evidentiary

hearing, Snider testified that trial counsel never reviewed the victim’s medical

records with him. N.T., Aug. 26, 2024, at 8. Trial counsel testified that the

strategy in the case was self-defense. Id. at 18. Counsel emphasized that

video from inside the bar showed that the victim started the fight and video

from outside the bar showed that the victim approached and punched Snider.

Id. He further noted the bartender was a witness for the defense and Snider’s

friend testified that he shouted that the victim had a gun. Id. at 19. Counsel

did not recall the medical records but stated that “[i]f [he] had them, [they]

went over them.” Id. Counsel asserted that he challenged the victim’s

testimony surrounding the incident. Id. at 22. Counsel acknowledged that if

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 901(a), 2501(a), 2702(a)(1), and 907(a), respectively.

-4- J-S24027-25

the victim had said to the medical personnel that he did not know who

assaulted him and “if he had said that he was standing outside of the bar and

was just jumped by some unknown individual and stabbed” that would be

“relevant impeachment material.” Id. at 24.

On December 20, 2024, the court dismissed Snider’s PCRA petition. This

timely appeal followed.

Snider raised the following issue:

Whether the lower [c]ourt committed legal error and abused its discretion in failing to grant PCRA relief based upon the claim that defense counsel was ineffective in failing to duly impeach and confront the [C]ommonwealth witness Rashod Crockett as to inconsistent statements he made which were documented in medical records arising out of his treatment directly after the subject incident comprising the criminal charges?

Snider’s Br. at 2.

On appeal from the denial or grant of relief under the PCRA, our review

is limited to determining “whether the PCRA court’s ruling is supported by the

record and free of legal error.” Commonwealth v. Presley, 193 A.3d 436,

442 (Pa.Super. 2018) (citation omitted).

Snider raises a claim of counsel’s ineffectiveness. “[C]ounsel is

presumed to be effective and the burden of demonstrating ineffectiveness

rests on [the] appellant.” Commonwealth v. Rivera, 10 A.3d 1276, 1279

(Pa.Super. 2010). To obtain relief based on a claim of ineffectiveness, a

petitioner must establish: “(1) his underlying claim is of arguable merit; (2)

counsel had no reasonable basis for his action or inaction; and (3) the

-5- J-S24027-25

petitioner suffered actual prejudice as a result.” Commonwealth v. Spotz,

84 A.3d 294, 311 (Pa. 2014). Prejudice in this context means that, “absent

counsel’s conduct, there is a reasonable probability the outcome of the

proceedings would have been different.” Commonwealth v. Velazquez, 216

A.3d 1146, 1149 (Pa.Super. 2019) (citation omitted). A failure to meet any of

these prongs bars a petitioner from obtaining relief. Commonwealth v.

Sneed, 45 A.3d 1096, 1106 (Pa. 2012).

Snider argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to utilize the

victim’s medical records as impeachment material. Snider’s Br. at 4. He notes

that in the medical report, the victim indicated he did not know who assaulted

him and described the assault differently from his trial testimony. Id. at 5.

Snider maintains that counsel “failed to discern the impeachment material . .

. and neglected to employ the admissions” to challenge the victim’s veracity

and his ability to recall the facts. Id. at 5-6. Snider asserts that at the PCRA

hearing, trial counsel testified he did not remember whether he reviewed the

medical record, but that it was his custom and practice to review all discovery

materials. Id. at 6; see also N.T., Aug. 26, 2024, at 19-22.

Snider points out that at the PCRA hearing, counsel conceded that a

primary element of the defense involved impeaching the victim’s testimony,

including highlighting inconsistences between the victim’s preliminary hearing

testimony and his trial testimony about the amount of alcohol he had

consumed and who instigated the altercation. Id. at 7. Snider further notes

that counsel emphasized at trial that the victim was in his prison guard

-6- J-S24027-25

uniform, which he contends created “an indicia of authority.” Id. at 8. Snider

asserts that counsel’s failure to use the victim’s statements from the medical

records is inexplicable, especially considering his concession that the

statements were significant and relevant to Snider’s defense. Id. at 8-9.

Snider asserts that the first two prongs of the ineffectiveness test are

satisfied “without question” as his claim regarding counsel’s failure to use the

impeachment material is of arguable merit and counsel offered no strategic

basis for his inaction. Id. at 10. He further asserts that counsel’s

ineffectiveness caused him actual prejudice. He asserts that counsel might

have offered a defense other than self-defense had he realized the victim

initially stated he did not know who assaulted him. Id. at 11.

Snider further argues that had counsel employed the medical records,

he could have explored the inconsistency between the victim’s statements and

the underlying fact that Snider and the victim knew each other. Snider alleges

counsel could have argued that that the victim informed the hospital staff he

did not know who assaulted him because he realized the totality of the

circumstances could lead a reasonable person to believe that he was at fault

for “instigating and prolonging and aggravating the altercation with Snider.”

Id. at 13.

The PCRA court found that Snider had not proven prejudice. PCRA Ct.

Op., filed Dec. 20, 2024, at 8. The court concluded that counsel conducted an

“aggressive and effective cross-examination.” Id. at 5. It pointed out that

counsel was able to have the victim acknowledge several points on cross-

-7- J-S24027-25

examination such as the victim wearing his prison uniform, his alcohol

consumption, and his aggressive actions caught in the video recording of the

incident. Id. at 5-6. The court added that there was other evidence proving

Snider’s involvement in the incident and at the PCRA hearing Snider did not

testify that he was not involved.

The PCRA court noted that self-defense was a viable theory and was

presented to the jury. It found that “any attempt to cross-examine the victim

about what he may or may not have said to the hospital staff when he was

first treated would [not] have had any significant impact upon the jury’s

determinations.” Id. at 8. The court concluded that Snider failed to prove that

the trial would likely have had a different result if trial counsel had used the

statements from the medical records.

The record supports the PCRA court’s findings, and it did not err in

concluding Snider failed to prove prejudice. Both direct and circumstantial

evidence showed that Snider participated in the incident, and the transcript

establishes counsel conducted a thorough cross-examination of the victim.

Additional cross-examination based on the medical records would not have

altered the outcome.

Order affirmed.

-8- J-S24027-25

DATE: 8/25/2025

-9-