Com. v. Windom, R.
This text of Com. v. Windom, R. (Com. v. Windom, R.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
J-S12042-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : ROY WINDOM : : Appellant : No. 1942 EDA 2021
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 30, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0005594-2017
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and DUBOW, J.
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED JULY 11, 2022
Appellant, Roy Windom, appeals pro se from the August 30, 2021 Order,
entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, dismissing his
Petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.
§§ 9541-46. After careful review, we affirm.
We adopt the facts as set forth by the PCRA court. See PCRA Ct. Op.,
11/9/21, at 1-3. In summary, on May 17, 2017, police arrested Appellant
after his younger sister, D.J., reported that Appellant had been physically and
sexually abusing her for years. At the time the abuse began, D.J. was 9 years
old and Appellant was 24 years old.
The Commonwealth charged Appellant with numerous offenses arising
from these allegations. On June 7, 2019, a jury convicted Appellant of Rape
of a Child, Unlawful Contact with a Minor, Endangering the Welfare of a Child,
and Indecent Assault of a Person Less than 13. J-S12042-22
On January 13, 2020, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an
aggregate term of 12½ to 25 years of incarceration followed by 12 years of
probation. This Court affirmed Appellant’s Judgment of Sentence.
Commonwealth v. Windom, 256 A.3d 31 (Pa. Super. filed May 13, 2021)
(unpublished memorandum). Appellant did not seek further review.
On May 7, 2021, Appellant pro se filed the instant PCRA petition raising
claims that his trial counsel, Richard J. Giuliani, Esquire, had been ineffective
by, inter alia, failing to investigate the victim’s alleged motive to fabricate the
allegations against him. Appellant further asserted that his trial counsel was
ineffective for failing to object to the Commonwealth’s closing arguments,
which Appellant characterized as constituting prosecutorial misconduct, and
by not ensuring that Appellant was in the courtroom for the presentation of
the jury’s questions to the court during the jury’s deliberation. The PCRA court
appointed counsel, who, on June 23, 2021, filed a Letter of No Merit pursuant
to Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) and
Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc), and
a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel.
On July 6, 2021, in response to counsel’s “no-merit” letter, Appellant
pro se filed an Amended PCRA Petition.
On July 29, 2021, the PCRA court notified Appellant of its intent to
dismiss his Petition without a hearing pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. Appellant
did not file a response to the court’s Rule 907 Notice.
-2- J-S12042-22
On August 30, 2021, the PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s Petition as
meritless.1 Appellant filed a timely pro se appeal from the court’s dismissal
order and complied with the court’s order to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
Statement. In addition to asserting that the PCRA court had erred in its
determination that the issues Appellant raised in his PCRA Petition lacked
merit, in the Rule 1925(b) Statement, Appellant also claimed that his PCRA
counsel had been ineffective in reaching the same conclusion and in filing a
“no-merit” letter. The PCRA court filed a responsive Rule 1925(a) Opinion.
Appellant raises the following issues on appeal:
1. Whether the PCRA court erred in deny[ing] Appellant[’s P]etition[?]
2. Whether PCRA counsel was ineffective for filing his no merit letter on the above issues[?]
3. Whether [A]ppellant is entitled to relief[?]
Appellant’s Brief at 6.
We review an order denying a petition for collateral relief to determine
whether the PCRA court’s decision is supported by the evidence of record and
free of legal error. Commonwealth v. Jarosz, 152 A.3d 344, 350 (Pa.
Super. 2016) (citing Commonwealth v. Fears, 86 A.3d 795, 803 (Pa.
2014)). “This Court grants great deference to the findings of the PCRA court
if the record contains any support for those findings.” Commonwealth v.
Anderson, 995 A.2d 1184, 1189 (Pa. Super. 2010). “Further, the PCRA
____________________________________________
1The PCRA court granted counsel’s Motion to Withdraw on September 15, 2021.
-3- J-S12042-22
court’s credibility determinations are binding on this Court, where there is
record support for those determinations.” Id.
To be eligible for relief under the PCRA, a petitioner must establish that
his conviction or sentence resulted from one or more of the enumerated errors
or defects found in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2): a constitutional violation;
ineffective assistance of counsel; an unlawfully induced plea; improper
obstruction by governmental officials; a case where exculpatory evidence has
been discovered; an illegal sentence has been imposed; or the tribunal
conducting the proceeding lacked jurisdiction. See 42 Pa.C.S. §§
9543(a)(2)(i)-(viii). In addition, a petitioner must establish that the issues
raised in the PCRA petition have not been previously litigated or waived, and
that “the failure to litigate the issue prior to or during trial, during unitary
review or on direct appeal could not have been the result of any rational,
strategic or tactical decision by counsel.” Id. at § 9543(a)(3), (a)(4).
We presume that counsel has rendered effective assistance.
Commonwealth v. Bickerstaff, 204 A.3d 988, 992 (Pa. Super. 2019). In
order to overcome the presumption that counsel has provided effective
assistance, a petitioner must establish that: (1) the underlying claim has
arguable merit; (2) counsel lacked a reasonable basis for his act or omission;
and (3) petitioner suffered actual prejudice. Commonwealth v. Bradley,
261 A.3d 381, 390 (Pa. 2021). A petitioner must plead and prove by a
preponderance of the evidence each of these elements. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a).
A claim will be denied if the petitioner fails to meet any one of these prongs.
-4- J-S12042-22
See Jarosz, 152 A.3d at 350 (citing Commonwealth v. Daniels, 963 A.2d
409, 419 (Pa. 2009)).
In his Brief, Appellant argues that his PCRA counsel was ineffective for
filing a “no-merit” letter because his underlying claims of trial counsel’s
ineffectiveness are meritorious.2 In particular, Appellant emphasizes the
meritoriousness of the claims he raised in his PCRA Petition, i.e., that his trial
counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the Commonwealth’s statements
during closing argument, which he characterizes as prosecutorial misconduct,
and for not insisting that Appellant be present in the courtroom during the
presentation of the jury’s questions to the court.
The Honorable Timika R. Lane, who presided over Appellant’s trial and
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S12042-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : ROY WINDOM : : Appellant : No. 1942 EDA 2021
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 30, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0005594-2017
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and DUBOW, J.
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED JULY 11, 2022
Appellant, Roy Windom, appeals pro se from the August 30, 2021 Order,
entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, dismissing his
Petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.
§§ 9541-46. After careful review, we affirm.
We adopt the facts as set forth by the PCRA court. See PCRA Ct. Op.,
11/9/21, at 1-3. In summary, on May 17, 2017, police arrested Appellant
after his younger sister, D.J., reported that Appellant had been physically and
sexually abusing her for years. At the time the abuse began, D.J. was 9 years
old and Appellant was 24 years old.
The Commonwealth charged Appellant with numerous offenses arising
from these allegations. On June 7, 2019, a jury convicted Appellant of Rape
of a Child, Unlawful Contact with a Minor, Endangering the Welfare of a Child,
and Indecent Assault of a Person Less than 13. J-S12042-22
On January 13, 2020, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an
aggregate term of 12½ to 25 years of incarceration followed by 12 years of
probation. This Court affirmed Appellant’s Judgment of Sentence.
Commonwealth v. Windom, 256 A.3d 31 (Pa. Super. filed May 13, 2021)
(unpublished memorandum). Appellant did not seek further review.
On May 7, 2021, Appellant pro se filed the instant PCRA petition raising
claims that his trial counsel, Richard J. Giuliani, Esquire, had been ineffective
by, inter alia, failing to investigate the victim’s alleged motive to fabricate the
allegations against him. Appellant further asserted that his trial counsel was
ineffective for failing to object to the Commonwealth’s closing arguments,
which Appellant characterized as constituting prosecutorial misconduct, and
by not ensuring that Appellant was in the courtroom for the presentation of
the jury’s questions to the court during the jury’s deliberation. The PCRA court
appointed counsel, who, on June 23, 2021, filed a Letter of No Merit pursuant
to Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) and
Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc), and
a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel.
On July 6, 2021, in response to counsel’s “no-merit” letter, Appellant
pro se filed an Amended PCRA Petition.
On July 29, 2021, the PCRA court notified Appellant of its intent to
dismiss his Petition without a hearing pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. Appellant
did not file a response to the court’s Rule 907 Notice.
-2- J-S12042-22
On August 30, 2021, the PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s Petition as
meritless.1 Appellant filed a timely pro se appeal from the court’s dismissal
order and complied with the court’s order to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
Statement. In addition to asserting that the PCRA court had erred in its
determination that the issues Appellant raised in his PCRA Petition lacked
merit, in the Rule 1925(b) Statement, Appellant also claimed that his PCRA
counsel had been ineffective in reaching the same conclusion and in filing a
“no-merit” letter. The PCRA court filed a responsive Rule 1925(a) Opinion.
Appellant raises the following issues on appeal:
1. Whether the PCRA court erred in deny[ing] Appellant[’s P]etition[?]
2. Whether PCRA counsel was ineffective for filing his no merit letter on the above issues[?]
3. Whether [A]ppellant is entitled to relief[?]
Appellant’s Brief at 6.
We review an order denying a petition for collateral relief to determine
whether the PCRA court’s decision is supported by the evidence of record and
free of legal error. Commonwealth v. Jarosz, 152 A.3d 344, 350 (Pa.
Super. 2016) (citing Commonwealth v. Fears, 86 A.3d 795, 803 (Pa.
2014)). “This Court grants great deference to the findings of the PCRA court
if the record contains any support for those findings.” Commonwealth v.
Anderson, 995 A.2d 1184, 1189 (Pa. Super. 2010). “Further, the PCRA
____________________________________________
1The PCRA court granted counsel’s Motion to Withdraw on September 15, 2021.
-3- J-S12042-22
court’s credibility determinations are binding on this Court, where there is
record support for those determinations.” Id.
To be eligible for relief under the PCRA, a petitioner must establish that
his conviction or sentence resulted from one or more of the enumerated errors
or defects found in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2): a constitutional violation;
ineffective assistance of counsel; an unlawfully induced plea; improper
obstruction by governmental officials; a case where exculpatory evidence has
been discovered; an illegal sentence has been imposed; or the tribunal
conducting the proceeding lacked jurisdiction. See 42 Pa.C.S. §§
9543(a)(2)(i)-(viii). In addition, a petitioner must establish that the issues
raised in the PCRA petition have not been previously litigated or waived, and
that “the failure to litigate the issue prior to or during trial, during unitary
review or on direct appeal could not have been the result of any rational,
strategic or tactical decision by counsel.” Id. at § 9543(a)(3), (a)(4).
We presume that counsel has rendered effective assistance.
Commonwealth v. Bickerstaff, 204 A.3d 988, 992 (Pa. Super. 2019). In
order to overcome the presumption that counsel has provided effective
assistance, a petitioner must establish that: (1) the underlying claim has
arguable merit; (2) counsel lacked a reasonable basis for his act or omission;
and (3) petitioner suffered actual prejudice. Commonwealth v. Bradley,
261 A.3d 381, 390 (Pa. 2021). A petitioner must plead and prove by a
preponderance of the evidence each of these elements. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a).
A claim will be denied if the petitioner fails to meet any one of these prongs.
-4- J-S12042-22
See Jarosz, 152 A.3d at 350 (citing Commonwealth v. Daniels, 963 A.2d
409, 419 (Pa. 2009)).
In his Brief, Appellant argues that his PCRA counsel was ineffective for
filing a “no-merit” letter because his underlying claims of trial counsel’s
ineffectiveness are meritorious.2 In particular, Appellant emphasizes the
meritoriousness of the claims he raised in his PCRA Petition, i.e., that his trial
counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the Commonwealth’s statements
during closing argument, which he characterizes as prosecutorial misconduct,
and for not insisting that Appellant be present in the courtroom during the
presentation of the jury’s questions to the court.
The Honorable Timika R. Lane, who presided over Appellant’s trial and
PCRA proceedings, has authored a comprehensive, thorough, and well-
reasoned opinion, citing to the record and relevant case law in addressing
Appellant’s challenge to the effectiveness of both his PCRA and trial counsel.
After a careful review of the parties’ arguments and the record, we affirm on
the basis of the PCRA court’s Opinion. See PCRA Ct. Op at 7-15 (concluding
that Appellant’s claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel lacked merit
because: (1) Appellant’s trial counsel had no reasonable basis to object to
statements made by the Commonwealth during closing arguments as the ____________________________________________
2 Although issues not raised within a PCRA petition may generally not be raised for the first time on appeal, in Commonwealth v. Bradley, 261 A.3d 381 (Pa. 2021), our Supreme Court held that a “PCRA petitioner may, after a PCRA court denies relief, and after obtaining new counsel or acting pro se, raise claims of PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness at the first opportunity to do so, even if on appeal.”
-5- J-S12042-22
statements were “derived directly from the evidence presented at trial”; (2)
the Commonwealth’s statements did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct
for the same reason; and (3) Appellant was present when the trial court
addressed the jury’s questions, and that because Appellant’s claims of trial
counsel’s ineffectiveness lacked merit, PCRA counsel was not ineffective for
filing a “no-merit” letter).
Order affirmed. The parties are instructed to attach a copy of the PCRA
court’s November 9, 2021 Opinion to all future filings.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 7/11/2022
-6- Circulated 06/10/2022 06:13 PM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TRIAL DIVISION - CRIMINAL SECTION
COMMONWEAL TH OF PENNSYLVANIA CP-51-CR-0005594-2017
v.
ROY WINDOM 1942 EDA 2021
OPINION Lane, J. November 9, 2021
OVERVIEW AND FACTS
Roy Windom ("Appellant") appeals prose from this court's order dismissing his petition
filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act. 1 For the reasons discussed below, no relief is due.
Appellant's convictions stem from his protracted physical and sexual abuse of his younger
sister, D.J. The abuse began when D.J. was nine years old and continued until she was thirteen.
(N.T. 615119 at 42, 61). At trial, D.J. testified to the following facts.
D.J. grew up and lived in Philadelphia with her mother (T. Lyons, herein "Lyons"),
Appellant, her younger brother ("J.J."), and two ofLyons's grandchildren. (Id. at 40, 113-14). The
home had three bedrooms on the second floor. (Id. at 41). D.J. and J.J. each had their own room
(Id.); Lyons occupied the third bedroom, which she typically shared with her grandchildren; and
Appellant, who did not have a bedroom, slept downstairs on the couch. (Id. at 41, 115).
1 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9541 et. seq.
0059_Opinion Occasionally, D.J. 's sisters visited Lyons's home and stayed in D.J. 's room, but D.J. generally did
not share her room with anyone. (Id. at 41, 63, 115).
D.J. testified that when she was seven years old, Appellant started to physically abuse
several members of her household. (Id. at 42, 117-18). Both D.J. and Lyons testified that Appellant
frequently "hit" Lyons, D.J., and D.J.'s siblings. (Id. at 45, 117-18). Lyons further testified that
Appellant often had violent fits of rage and that the members of her household were "afraid" of
him. (Id. at 124, 126).
D.J. also described several incidents of sexual abuse by Appellant. One night when D.J.
was nine years old, he entered the minor's bedroom and touched her breasts and "private area"
under her clothes. (N.T. 615119 at 43). Appellant digitally penetrated D.J. 's vagina and moved his
fingers in a "circular" motion. (Id. at 43-44). He then engaged in vaginal intercourse with D.J.,
which caused her to bleed and feel pain. (Id. at 44). Appellant abused D.J. in a similar fashion on
several occasions. (Id. at 45). D.J. explained that Appellant typically positioned her on her "back
or [her] side," and that the abuse always occurred in her bedroom. (Id. at 57, 45). D.J. further
testified that Appellant threatened to hurt their mother if D.J. ever disclosed his misconduct. (Id.
at 45). D.J. took Appellant's words as a "valid threat," and she was effectively deterred from telling
anyone about the abuse. (Id. at 45-46, 56).
When D.J. was eleven or twelve years old, the family moved to a different home in
Philadelphia, where Appellant continued to vaginally rape D.J. on a regular basis. (N.T. 615119 at
46, 50). The last incident occurred at some point in 2014, when D.J. was thirteen years old. (Id. at
61, 68). Appellant became intoxicated and instigated a physical fight with Lyons. (Id. at 49).
Following the altercation, Appellant went to D.J.'s bedroom. (Id.). When the child saw him, she
started to cry and told him "no." (Id. at 49-50). Appellant laid on D.J.'s bed as she repeatedly hit
2 him and tried to push him away. (Id. at 50). Despite her effmis, Appellant held her hands "back"
and forced her to engage in vaginal intercourse. (Id. at 47-51).
The following morning before DJ. went to school, Appellant violently attacked D.J.,
Lyons, and J.J. (Id. at 47). During his outburst, Appellant punched D.J. in her face, which caused
her to sustain a black eye. 2 (Id. at 47, 66). D.J. disclosed Appellant's violent behavior to her school
principal, who contacted the Depaiiment of Human Services ("DHS"). (Id. at 51-52, 66, 69). DJ.
did not disclose any details of Appellant's sexual malfeasance on that date. (Id. at 47, 66). That
same day, DHS removed D.J. and J.J. from Lyons' home (Id. at 51-52), and the two children were
later placed in their father's care in Delaware. (Id. at 69-70); (Comm. Ex. 4 at 6).
On August 25, 2014, D.J. disclosed aspects of Appellant's sexual abuse to healthcare
professionals at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. (N.T. 615119 at 53-54); (Comm. Ex. 4 at 3,
9). On that same date, Officer Timothy Mcintyre from the Special Victims Unit authored a report
and referred the case to Philadelphia Children's Alliance ("PCA"). (Comm. Ex. 3 at 2). PCA
conducted interviews on October 29, 2014 and November 19, 2015, whereinD.J. disclosed various
instances of sexual abuse by Appellant. (N.T. 6/5/19 at 54-57); (Comm. Exs. 2, 3). Following
these interviews, the case was again referred to the SVU, where Officer Tyrone Green investigation
the allegations and authored a corresponding report. (N.T. 6/5/19 at 165); (Comm. Ex. 6 at 1).
Appellant was eventually aiTested on May 17, 2017. (Comm. Ex. 7 at 1).
2 D.J. explicitly testified that Appellant blacked her eye in February of2015 (N.T. 6/5/19 at 68). However, the record as a whole establishes that this paiiicular incident occurred at some point before DJ.'s October 29, 2014 DHS interview. See (N.T. 6/5/19 at 66); (Comm. Ex. 3 at 2) ("Per initial referral information, in June 2014, [DJ.] was living with [her] mom ... and [Appellant] ... and was punched in the face by [Appellant][.]"); (Comm. Ex. 4 at 9) ("[DJ.] repmis that in June, her 27 yo brother punched her in the eye and DHS sent her and her 11 yo b[r]other to live with her father in DE.").
3 PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Based on the aforementioned facts, on June 7, 2019, a jury found Appellant guilty of rape
of a child, unlawful contact with a minor, endangering the welfare of a child ("EWOC"), and
indecent assault of a person less than thi1ieen. 3 Appellant filed a pro se interlocutory appeal on
June 15, 2019, which the Superior Court quashed on September 24, 2019. 4
On January 13, 2020, this court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate 12Yz to 25 years'
incarceration, followed by 12 years of probation. This court sentenced Appellant to 10 to 20 years'
imprisonment for rape of a child and a consecutive 2Yz to 5 years' imprisonment for EWOC,
followed by 7 years' probation for unlawful contact with a minor and a consecutive 5 years'
probation for indecent assault. Appellant was further ordered to undergo sex offender treatment,
mental health treatment, and to comply with all Tier III registration and notification requirements
under SORNA.
Appellant filed a second notice of appeal on February 11, 2020. On March 9, 2020,
Appellant timely submitted a Pa.R.A.P. l 925(b) statement challenging, inter alia, the discretionary
aspects of his sentence. This court issued an opinion on November 9, 2020, finding that Appellant
was not entitled to relief. The Superior Court agreed and affirmed the judgment of sentence on
April 15, 2021. Commonwealth v. Windom, No. 607 EDA 2020, 2021WL1424245 (Pa. Super.
Ct. Apr. 15, 2021), opinion withdrawn (Apr. 19, 2021), superseded sub nom. Commonwealth v.
Windom, 256 A.3d 31 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021) (unpublished disposition). However, on April 19,
2021, the Superior Court withdrew its original memorandum and issued a new memorandum on
May 13, 2021, stating, "[W]e discern no abuse of discretion in the trial comi's sentence, and we
3 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3121 (c), 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 63 l 8(a)(l), 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4304(a)(l), and 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3126(a)(7), respectively. 4 See Superior Court Order 1732 EDA 2019.
4 decline to disturb it. Therefore, we find that Windom's appeal merits no relief." Windom, 256
A.3d 31. Appellant did not seek discretionary review with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
In the interim, on May 7, 2021, Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition. 5 Stephen
O'Hanlon, Esquire entered his appearance on Appellant's behalf on May 25, 2021. On June 23,
2021, Attorney O'Hanlon filed a "no merit" Finley 6 letter, wherein he addressed fifteen discrete
issues asserted within Appellant's pro se petition. Upon counsel's review, he determined,
"[Appellant] is not entitled to relief because [his] claims are without merit[,] and [Appellant]
cannot show prejudice relating to prior counsel's performance." On July 6, 2021, Appellant filed
a pro se amended petition entitled "Issues to be Asserted on Appeal," in response to counsel's
Finley letter.
On July 29, 2021, this court issued an order informing Appellant that his petition would be
summarily dismissed, pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907, and Appellant's petition was fmmally
dismissed on August 30, 2021. Attorney O'Hanlon was permitted to withdraw.
On September 9, 2021, Appellant filed the instant pro se notice of appeal. This court
ordered Appellant to file a 1925(b) statement on September 15, 2021. On September 29, 2021,
Appellant filed a "Tentative and Preliminary concise statements' of matters complained of on
5 Notably, Appellant filed his PCRA petition on May 7, 2021-before the Superior Court issued its second memorandum on May 13, 2021. It is well settled that "[a] PCRA petition may only be filed after an appellant has waived or exhausted his direct appeal rights." Commonwealth v. Smith, 244 A.3d 13, 16 (2020). Moreover, "[i]f a petition is filed while a direct appeal is pending, the PCRA court should dismiss it without prejudice towards the petitioner's right to file a petition once his direct appeal rights have been exhausted." Id. at 16-17. However, this court determined that Appellant's petition was not improperly filed during the pendency of direct appeal, as the Superior Comi had already affirmed Appellant's judgment of sentence in its initial memorandum on April 15, 2021, and Appellant did not seek discretionary review with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. See Superior Court Docket No. 607 EDA 2020 at 4. 6 Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213, (Pa. Super. 1988).
5 appeal." He filed a nearly identical,7 amended 1925(b) statement on October 1, 2021, raising the
following issues:
1. PCRA counsel was ineffective for determining [A]ppellant[']s claims raised in his pro se PCRA petition were without merit. With special attention to the claims of prosecutorial misconduct in the Commonwealth[']s closing arguments, trial counsel[']s failure to object to the Commonwealth[']s closing arguments. [See N.T. 616119 at 43, 50-53]. As well as the claim involving not having [A]ppellant present during the jury question ([A]ppellant understands the court position on this issue but being this was a pivotal moment in [A]ppellant[']s trial[,] PCRA counsel could have amended this to better suit a claim on trial counsel[']s failure to act). Both the record and the evidence support these claims so [A]ppellant request[ s] to present[] the following questions to this court: a. Do these claims contain arguable merit proving PCRA counsel did not conduct an extensive review?
b. Is [A]ppellant entitled to relief or remand for further review on the merits of these claims?
c. Did PCRA counsel[']s decision to file a no-merit letter on these claims deny [A]ppellant an opportunity at a meaningful review?
d. Did the accumulation of these errors deny [A]ppellant a fair trial combined with the later claim of trial counsel[']s failure to conduct a thorough investigation?
2. PCRA counsel was ineffective for not communicating issues with [A]ppellant[']s claims raised in his PCRA petition, or requesting other forms of supporting information or documentation such as the PCA reports (which [A]ppellant believes PCRA counsel could not have based on some of his conclusions). Prior to filing his Turner/Finley letter denying [A]ppellant a chance at a meaningful review.
3. PCRA counsel was ineffective for determining [A]ppellant' s claims of trial counsel[']s failure to conduct a proper a[nd] thorough investigation of the following dates are without merit: 10-1-14, 10-2-14, 10-6-14, 10-29-15, 11-18- 15, 11-19-15, this also includes claims involving the in camera hearing involving the psychiatric reports from 11-19-15 and the correspondence that accompanied the original PCRA petition. In addition[,] trial counsel[']s failure to investigate the motive behind the 2015 and 2014 allegations.
7 Appellant's I 925(b) statements are identical in nearly every aspect. However, the amended statement includes (I) specific citations to the record that supplement Appellant's claim relating to the Commonwealth's closing statements and (2) a corrected date relating to Appellant's third claim. This court's opinion solely references Appellant's amended I 925(b) statement.
6 4. PCRA counsel was ineffective for not communicating the need for more information to further the claims involving trial counsel's deletions of evidence in the form of text messages prior to trial. Denying [A]ppellant the ability to produce rebuttal evidence, and exculpatory evidence as well as character evidence for review.
5. Did the PCRA court eIT in denying [A]ppellant[']s PCRA petlt10n after [A]ppellant made the court aware of issues involving communication and the lack of available information in the form of the PCA reports for PCRA counsel to make an adequate decision in filing his no-merit letter.
6. Did the PCRA court eIT in denying [A]ppellant's PCRA petition after making the comi aware of issues, which involved trial counsel deleting the text messages and violating the Rules of Professional Conduct?
(Am. 1925(b) Statement) (unnecessary capitalization omitted) (some formatting altered).
DISCUSSION
As an initial matter, issues that are not raised within a PCRA petition generally may not be
raised for the first time on appeal. Commonwealth v. Santiago, 855 A.2d 682, 691 (Pa. Super.
2004) ("We have stressed that a claim not raised in a PCRA petition cannot be raised for the first
time on appeal."). Prior to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania's ruling in Commonwealth v.
Bradley, this rule applied equally to PCRA appeals where a pro se petitioner-appellant claimed
(for the first time on appeal) that PCRA counsel was ineffective. No. 37 EAP 2020, 2021 WL
4877232 (Pa. Oct. 20, 2021 ). However, our Supreme Cami recently held that a "PCRA petitioner
may, after a PCRA court denies relief, and after obtaining new counsel or acting prose, raise
claims of PCRA counsel's ineffectiveness at the first oppmiunity to do so, even if on appeal." Id.
Here, Appellant raises allegations of ineffectiveness against PCRA counsel for the first
time on appeal. Under Bradley, Appellant's claims against PCRA counsel are ripe for appellate
review, despite being debuted for the first time in his 1925(b) statement. Nonetheless, Appellant
is not entitled to PCRA relief, and this comi's order dismissing his petition should be affirmed.
7 In reviewing a PCRA court's dismissal of a petition, the standard of review is well settled:
"The standard of review of an order dismissing a PCRA petition is whether that determination is
suppmied by the evidence ofrecord and is free oflegal etTor. The PCRA comi's findings will not
be disturbed unless there is no support for the findings in the certified record." Commonwealth v.
Williams, 244 A.3d 1281, 1286-87 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citation omitted).
Moreover, a PCRA court may dismiss a petition without a hearing if the petition raises no
genuine issue of material fact and no legitimate purpose would be served by further proceedings.
Commonwealth v. Barbosa, 819 A.2d 81, 85 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citing Pa.R.Crim.P. 907). "To
obtain reversal of a PCRA court's decision to dismiss a petition without a hearing, an appellant
must show that he raised a genuine issue of fact which, if resolved in his favor, would have entitled
him to relief, or that the comi otherwise abused its discretion in denying a hearing."
Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 108 A.3d 739, 750 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted).
To be eligible for PCRA relief under a theory of ineffective assistance of counsel, a
petitioner must establish that counsel's ineffectiveness "so undermined the truth-determining
process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place." Commonwealth
v. Johnson, 966 A.2d 523, 532 (Pa. 2009) (quoting 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2)(ii)). Counsel is
presumed to have rendered effective assistance, and the petitioner has the burden of proving
otherwise. Id. A petitioner can only satisfy his burden by pleading and proving each of the
following elements by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) the underlying claim has arguable
merit, (2) the strategic tactics employed by counsel had no reasonable basis designed to effectuate
the petitioner's interest, and (3) the petitioner suffered actual prejudice, and, but for counsel's act
or omission, the outcome of the proceeding likely would have been different. 8 Id. at 532-33. The
8 "The three-factor approach utilized in Pennsylvania derives from our application in Commonwealth v. Pierce, 515 Pa. 153, 527 A.2d 973, 975 (1987), of the 'performance and prejudice' test articulated by the United States Supreme
8 ineffectiveness test is conjunctive; if a petitioner fails to satisfy a single prong, his ineffectiveness
claim will fail. Commonwealth v. Martin, 5 A.3d 177, 183 (Pa. 2010). Finally, "a claim of PCRA
counsel's ineffectiveness is subject to the traditional test of ineffective assistance set fmih above."
Commonwealth v. Lauro, 819 A.2d 100, 109 (Pa. Super. 2003) (emphasis added).
I. PCRA counsel was not ineffective for concluding that Appellant's pro se claims lacked merit.
In his first issue on appeal, Appellant argues that trial counsel was ineffective by (a) failing
to object to the Commonwealth's closing arguments and (b) failing to ensure that Appellant was
"present during the jury question." (Arn. 1925(b) Statement at 1; see also, PCRA Pet. at 13, 18-
19, 27). 9 He further claims PCRA counsel was ineffective for determining that these claims lack
merit.
Appellant is not entitled to relief. His underlying issues relating to the Commonwealth's
closing remarks and his presence during jury questions are contradicted by the record. Thus,
neither trial counsel nor PCRA counsel may be deemed ineffective on either basis.
a. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the Commonwealth's closing arguments.
By way of background, Appellant testified that he and Lyons had a "dispute" in October
of 2015, and Lyons lost her job a "couple of weeks later." (N.T. 6/5/19 at 187-88, 191-93).
According to Appellant, D.J. learned of the dispute when Lyons visited her at The Bridge 10 on
November 18, 2015. (PCRA Pet. at 13, 27). Throughout his PCRA petition, Appellant fervently
Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)." Commonwealth v. Dennis, 950 A.2d 945, 954 (Pa. 2008). 9 Appellant's PCRA petition has been repaginated for clarity. See Trial Court Attachment A. 10 According to the November 19, 2015 PCA interview summary, D.J. had been "in DHS's care and inpatient at The Bridge .... since June of2015." (Comm. Ex. 2 at 1, 3). The Bridge is "a nonprofit behavioral health treatment and youth opportunity program for adolescents and their families seeking to overcome substance abuse, mental health issues, truancy and other challenges." Mission & Overview, THE BRIDGE, https://thebridge.phmc.org/mission-a- overview (last visited Nov. 3, 2021).
9 highlights the fact that Lyons's visit occurred just one day before D.J.'s November 19 PCA
interview, during which she reported that Appellant "sexually abused" her and "put his private
between her legs." (PCRA Pet. at 13, 27; Comm. Ex. 2 at 2). Appellant theorizes, "[D.J.] was
angered over her mother losing her job and became overwhelmed with the situation and held me
responsible. I believe because of this she made the allegations." (PCRA Pet. at 9-10, 13; see also,
Am. PCRA Pet. at 13-14, 16).
During closing arguments, the Commonwealth mentioned Appellant's theory "that the
mom made it up to get back at [him]" and countered, "[r]emember where [D.J.] was when she
made that allegation, when she finally told her story. She was at [T]he Bridge, she didn't have
contact with the mom." (N.T. 6/6/19 at 43). The prosecutor elaborated on this argument with the
following remarks, each of which Appellant challenges on appeal:
Now, there are some imp01iant things about that because there's been through the defendant's testimony and through the argument there's been some allegations that the mom made it up to get back at Mr. Windom. Remember where she was when she made that allegation, when she finally told her story. She was at [T]he Bridge, she didn't have contact with the mom. She's taken immediately to the Philadelphia Children's Alliance, and she tells what happened to her. There's no way that she's told what to say.
Now he tells you that there is something going on with [T.] Lyons, and that's the reason this is up, right, that this is revenge, that [T.] Lyons stole from him, something happened, it was getting resolved, and she's after him. He says it was resolved on the 18th of November, and all of a sudden when this has happened on the 19th of November, there's your timeline for you, right? Amazing because again remember [T.] Lyons didn't have access to [DJ.], didn't find somehow on the 181h and say, hey, you better go make this report, let's get him in trouble. [D.J.] is in the Bridge, away from the mom, in therapy. But [Appellant] got to shape his story because he knows it was disclosed on the 19tl1, and I'll come up with something on the 18th that gives a reason for it, no evidence of that besides his testimony. So where does that leave us?
Very interesting and Mr. Windom noted it on the stand. He makes his accusation. Now [T.] Lyons testified on the stand, and you saw the cross-
10 examination by the defense attorney, [Appellant]'s attorney. He wasn't gentle with [T.] Lyons. He was aggressive as he's allowed to be. He pressed her on many issues. Not once did he ask her about that. He didn't say, now did you steal from [Appellant]? He didn't mention that because it didn't happen and he knew what her answer would be. He can't trap in something that didn't happen, so he didn't ask about it.
He had [D.J.] on the stand and he was pressing that young woman, as is his right to do. He cross-examined her on many, many issues. Did he say, Did your morn steal from him? Did your morn put you up to this and tell you to make something up to get him in trouble and get revenge? No, he didn't ask her any questions about that. He asked lots of questions, forceful but he didn't ask her questions about that because it didn't happen and he knew what the answer would be, so it doesn't give him an opportunity to address it, and then [Appellant] gets on the stand and says, by the way, my morn stole from me. It was resolved on the 18th of November. Then she got back at me on the 19th. It doesn't make any sense.
The Commonwealth will submit it was untruthful and you should weigh that against bias. Again, [Appellant] is not going to admit he did it, but ladies and gentlemen, the evidence shows he did do it.
(N. T. 616119 at 43, 50-53).
Appellant argues that the prosecutor's statements constitute "prosecutorial misconduct," as
the statements are "untrue according to the evidence on record," "improper," and "did not relate
back to the evidence." (PCRA Pet. at 13, 19, 27). On appeal, Appellant derivatively claims that
trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to these remarks, and PCRA counsel was
ineffective for determining that trial counsel was not ineffective. (Am. 1925(b) Statement at if 1).
However, as the Commonwealth's statements are clearly supported by the evidence, Appellant's
underlying claim has no merit. Thus, both ineffectiveness claims must fail.
It is well settled that prosecutors "must have reasonable latitude in presenting a case to the
jury, and must be free to present arguments with logical force and vigor." Commonwealth v.
Chamberlain, 30 A.3d 381, 408 (Pa. 2011) (citation omitted). During closing arguments,
prosecutors may "argue all reasonable inferences from the evidence in the record" and "respond
fairly to arguments made in the defense closing argument." Commonwealth v. Clancy, 192 A.3d
11 44, 62 (Pa. 2018). Moreover, Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct "simultaneously impose
heightened ethical obligations upon prosecutors, while recognizing that prosecutors nonetheless
function as advocates for the Commonwealth." Id. (emphasis added). As paii of a prosecutor's
role as an advocate, he or she may argue that the evidence establishes the accused's guilt.
Chamberlain, 30 A.3d at 408. Consequently, "the underlying issues and elements at trial dictate
the bounds of pe1missible argument." Clancy, 192 A.3d at 62.
Applying these principles, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania utilizes the following two-
part test to evaluate a prosecutor's closing statements: "[W]e have required Pennsylvania courts to
evaluate both the substance of the challenged remark and its effect upon the jury." Id. Further,
[t]he substance prong requires a court to examine the challenged remark in the context of the issues presented at trial. The court first must determine whether the remark reasonably relates to the facts of the case. A statement is impermissible where the language and inferences of the summation no longer relate back to the evidence on the record. Upon finding that the statement at issue has a reasonable evidentiary foundation, the comi next must determine whether the statement facilitates "the trier's duty to decide the case on the evidence. The remark not only must be based upon the evidence; it also must bear relevance to the crimes at issue. Merely derogatory, ad hominem characterizations of the defendant or defense counsel are beyond the bounds of permissible advocacy; the prosecutor's comments must be tethered to the elements of the charged offenses and the evidence offered to prove those elements, and also should be tailored to a fair and reasonable rebuttal of the arguments advanced by the defense.
Id. at 62-63 (emphasis added) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
Finally, even if a prosecutor's statements are improper, they "do not amount to reversible
error unless the 'unavoidable effect of such comments would be to prejudice the jury, forming in
their minds fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant so that they could not weigh the evidence
objectively and render a true verdict."' Chamberlain, 30 A.3d at 408 (citing Commonwealth v.
D' Amato, 526 A.2d 300, 309 (Pa. 1987)).
12 Here, contrary to Appellant's claim, the Commonwealth's closing remarks were derived
directly from the evidence presented at trial. D.J.'s November 19, 2015 PCA summary indicates
that D.J. had been "in DHS's care and inpatient at The Bridge" since June of 2015. (Comm. Ex. 2
at 1, 3; see also, N.T. 6/5/19 at 156-61). The report further indicates that about "one month"
before D.J. 's November 19 interview, she "started disclosing about the current allegations ... and
recently ha[d] started becoming more descriptive." 11 (Comm. Ex. 2 at 3). Finally, the report notes,
"[D.J.] saw [Lyons] for the first time in a long time yesterday (11/18/15)." (Comm. Ex. 2 at 4)
(emphasis added).
Accordingly, even ifD.J. had learned of Appellant's and Lyons's "dispute" one day before
her PCA interview, it does not follow that the dispute prompted her to fabricate allegations against
Appellant (as he repeatedly asserts in his PCRA petitions). (See PCRA Pet. at 9-10, 13; Am.
PCRA Pet. at 13-14, 16). The evidence plainly establishes that D.J. had been slowly disclosing
aspects of the underlying abuse for "approximately one month" before she supposedly learned
about the issue between Appellant and Lyons. (Comm. Ex. 2 at 3). Thus, Appellant's stated
grievance with the Commonwealth's closing arguments-i.e., that they were "untrue according to
the evidence on record"-is simply incorrect.
Moreover, the Commonwealth's remarks did not include ad hominem attacks, improper
personal opinions about Appellant's guilt, or any statement that created "fixed bias and hostility"
toward Appellant. See Chamberlain, 30 A.3d at 408. Rather, the statements were a perfectly fair
rebuttal to Appellant's testimony. Thus, trial counsel had no reasonable basis on which to lodge
an objection, and Appellant's ineffectiveness claims must fail.
11Carolina Castano, a forensic interviewer from PCA, testified that child complainants "typically" disclose sexual abuse "in a very gradual nature which is they tell a little bit at first, see how people react, then tell a little bit more." (N.T. 615119 at 160).
13 b. Appellant was present when this court addressed the jury questions; thus, his claim fails.
In his next claim, Appellant alleges that he was not present "during the jury questions."
(Am. 1925(b) Statement at if 1). He further claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to
lodge an objection on this ground, and PCRA was ineffective for concluding that the claim lacks
merit. As this allegation is based on a misstatement of fact, no relief is due.
The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment and in the Due Process Clauses of the
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments provide a criminal defendant with the right to be present at his
or her trial. Commonwealth v. Hunsberger, 58 A.3d 32, 37 (Pa. 2012) (citation omitted). Moreover,
the High Court "has assumed that, even in situations where the defendant is not actually confronting witnesses or evidence against him, he has a due process right to be present in his own person whenever his presence has a relation, reasonably substantial, to the fullness of his opportunity to defend against the charge. Thus, a defendant is guaranteed the right to be present at any stage of the criminal proceeding that is critical to its outcome if his presence would contribute to the fairness of the procedure.
Id. (ellipsis omitted) (citation omitted).
Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 602(A) further provides, "[t]he defendant shall
be present at every stage of the trial including the impaneling of the jury and the return of the
verdict, and at the imposition of sentence." Pa.R.Crim.P. 602(A). A defendant's right to be present
at "every stage" of his trial includes a right to be present during a trial court's ruling(s) on questions
from the jury. See Commonwealth v. Williams, 959 A.2d 1272, 1282-83 (Pa. Super. 2008)
(concluding that the trial court violated Rule 602(A) in ruling on the jury's request to review an
exhibit where the defendant was not present).
Here, the jury began deliberation on June 6, 2019 at 11:49 a.m. (N.T. 6/6/19 at 80). At
some point, the jury submitted two questions: "Question No. 1. Can we see the PFA report No. 2
from November 15 .... Question No. 2. We are close to reaching an agreement, but not all people
14 are in agreement." (N.T. 6/7/19 at 4). This court could not immediately rule on the jury's questions,
as this court was sitting for an umelated matter. (Id.).
By the time the questions were presented to this co mi on June 7, 2019, the parties had
"agree[ d] to tell [the jury] to rely on their own recollection," and the jury had already airived at a
unanimous verdict. (Id. at 4-10). Thus, the jury questions were never ruled upon, either within or
outside of Appellant's presence. Moreover, Appellant was present when this comi read the jury's
questions aloud in open court. (Id. at 4-5). Accordingly, Appellant's claim that he was not "present
during the jury question" has no merit, and neither trial counsel nor PCRA counsel may be deemed
ineffective on this ground.
II. Appellant's remaining claims are waived for lack of specificity.
Each of Appellant's remaining claims is too imprecise to enable meaningful review. Thus,
the remaining issues are waived.
Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure require a 1925(b) statement to "concisely
identify each error that the appellant intends to assert with sufficient detail to identify the issue to
be raised for the judge." Pa.R.A.P. l 925(b)(4)(ii). It is well settled that a statement "which is too
vague to allow the court to identify the issues raised on appeal is the functional equivalent of no
Concise Statement at all." Commonwealth v. Reeves, 907 A.2d 1, 2 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation
omitted). The trial court's "review and legal analysis can be fatally impaired when the court has to
guess at the issues raised. Thus, if a concise statement is too vague, the court may find waiver."
Commonwealth v. Scott, 212 A.3d 1094, 1112 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted), appeal denied,
222 A.3d 3 83 (Pa. 2019). Further, a litigant appealing the denial of PCRA relief must strictly
comply with the requirements of Rule 1925(b), or his appellate issues will be waived.
Commonwealth v. Parrish, 224 A.3d 682, 700 (Pa. 2020). Even ifthe trial comi "correctly guesses
15 the issues appellants raise on appeal and writes an opinion pursuant to that supposition the issues
are still waived." Commonwealth v. Vurirnindi, 200 A.3d 1031, 1038 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation
and punctuation omitted), reargurnent denied (Feb. 6, 2019).
Moreover, pro se defendants are subject to the same rules of procedure as are represented
defendants. Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 108 A.3d 739, 766 (Pa. 2014). Courts may "liberally
construe materials filed by a prose litigant," however, ''prose status confers no special benefit
upon a litigant, and a court cannot be expected to become a litigant's counsel or find more in a
written pro se submission than is fairly conveyed in the pleading." Commonwealth v. Blakeney,
108 A.3d 739, 766 (Pa. 2014) (emphasis added) (citation omitted).
Here, in his second claim, Appellant states,
2) PCRA counsel was ineffective for not communicating issues with [A]ppellant[']s claims raised in his PCRA petition, or requesting other forms of supporting information or documentation such as the PCA reports (which [A]ppellant believes PCRA counsel could not have based on some of his conclusions). Prior to filing his Turner/Finley letter denying [A]ppellant a chance at a meaningful review.
(Arn. 1925(b) Statement at if 2). Appellant's fifth claim is similarly worded, but the issue is framed
in terms of trial court error:
5) Did the PCRA court err in denying [A]ppellant[']s PCRA petition after [A]ppellant made the court aware of issues involving communication and the lack of available information in the form of the PCA reports for PCRA counsel to make an adequate decision in filing his no-merit letter.
(Arn. 1925(b) Statement at if 5).
Appellant's second and fifth claims are both waived, as this co mi is unable to discern which
issue(s) Appellant seeks to pursue on appeal. First, it is not clear whether he asse1is that PCRA
counsel failed to adequately communicate with him or whether counsel failed to adequately
communicate Appellant's PCRA claims to this court. Second, Appellant seemingly argues that
16 "some of'' PCRA counsel's "conclusions" indicate that counsel did not have enough "information"
to "adequate[ly]" review Appellant's PCRA claims. Aside from his "belief'' that counsel did not
review the underlying "PCA reports," Appellant offers no support for this extremely vague claim.
Nor does he indicate how the outcome of the proceeding would have been different, had counsel
obtained more "information." Finally, Appellant takes issue with PCRA counsel's "conclusions,"
but those "conclusions" (i.e., counsel's Finley letter) include analyses of fifteen different issues.
(See Finley Letter). Appellant fails to specify which "conclusion" or "conclusions" for which he
seeks appellate review. Thus, Appellant's second and fifth issues are waived.
Similarly, in Appellant's third claim, he argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing
to conduct a "thorough investigation" of the underlying events and "fail[ing] to investigate the
motive behind the 2015 and 2014 allegations." (1925(b) Statement at if 3). The entire claim reads,
trial counsel[] fail[ ed] to conduct a proper a[nd] thorough investigation of the following dates ... 10-1-14, 10-2-14, 10-6-14, 10-29-15, 11-18-15, 11-19-15, this also includes claims involving the in camera hearing involving the psychiatric reports from 11-19-15 and the correspondence that accompanied the original PCRA petition. In addition[,] trial counsel[] fail[ ed] to investigate the motive behind the 2015 and 2014 allegations.
(Am. 1925(b) Statement at if 3).
Appellant's statement does not identify any specific fact, theory, or witness that trial
counsel supposedly failed to investigate or how counsel's investigation was not "proper."
Moreover, the dates cited within Appellant's statement span the course of two years and refer to
events involving nearly every witness in this case. Appellant's third claim effectively encompasses
every conceivable claim contained within his PCRA petition. It is far too broad to enable
meaningful review. See Parrish, 224 A.3d at 700. Further, this court is not obligated to assume the
burden of "identify[ing] potential appellate issues and fram[ing] them" for Appellant. See id. Thus,
Appellant's third issue is waived.
17 Appellant's fomih claim is also waived. Appellant asse1is,
4) PCRA counsel was ineffective for not communicating the need for more information to further the claims involving trial counsel's deletions of evidence in the form of text messages prior to trial. Denying [A]ppellant the ability to produce rebuttal evidence, and exculpatory evidence as well as character evidence for review.
(Am. 1925(b) Statement at if 4).
Again, this court is unable to parse Appellant's incoherent claim. Appellant seemingly
implies that if PCRA counsel had obtained "more information," then Appellant would have been
able to "produce rebuttal evidence, and exculpatory evidence as well as character evidence for
review." However, he does not specify what "information" counsel should have or could have
obtained. Appellant also fails to explain how counsel's alleged failure prevented Appellant from
"produc[ing] rebuttal evidence, and exculpatory evidence as well as character evidence for
review." Nor does he specify what "evidence" he would have been able to present, had counsel
obtained "more information." Accordingly, Appellant's fourth issue is also waived.
Finally, in Appellant's last allegation of error, he asserts the PCRA court erred "in denying
[A]ppellant' s PCRA petition after making the court aware of issues, which involved trial counsel
deleting the text messages and violating the Rules of Professional Conduct." (Am. 1925(b)
Statement at if 6). This claim is waived for lack of specificity. In his PCRA petitions, Appellant
asserts numerous claims relating to the allegedly "deleted" text messages and the evidence
supposedly contained within the same. 12 Appellant's 1925(b) statement fails to identify which of
these underlying claims he seeks to pursue on appeal. Thus, the issue is waived.
12 For example, Appellant posits that the text messages would have proved, inter a!ia, D.J. was being "bullied" at school because she sent sexually explicit photos to a peer on Facebook, (Am. PCRA Pet. at 4, 8); Appellant "enforce[ ed] structure and discipline" in Lyons's home, (Id. at 5, 8); Lyons "constantly" lied to Appellant about D.J. 's "whereabouts," (Id. at 5); D.J.'s sister repmted sexual abuse by their uncle, which D.J. may have overheard, (Id. at 1O); and D.J. knew about the dispute between Appellant and Lyons prior to disclosing the underlying incidents to PCA on November I 9, 2015. (Id. at 18).
18 Moreover, Appellant's claim that trial counsel deleted text messages from Appellant's
phone is unfounded. See (PCRA Pet. at 10-12, 18; Arn. PCRA Pet. at 4-8). The only proof offered
in support of this claim is Appellant's "belie[f]" that trial counsel "deleted evidence" (i.e.,
Appellant's text messages) so that counsel could "proceed with his own flawed defense, against
[Appellant]'s interest." (Id. at 4, 6). This wholly unsubstantiated accusation is not a sufficient basis
on which to deem trial counsel ineffective.
CONCLUSION
This court has undertaken careful review of the record and finds no harmful, prejudicial,
or reversible errors, and its order dismissing Appellant's PCRA petition should be affirmed.
~ /'--),,________ D Lane,J.
19 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL TRIAL DIVISION
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA CP-51-CR-0005594-2017
PROOF OF SERVICE
1 hereby certify that I am this day serving the foregoing Order upon the person(s), and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of Pa. R. Crim. P. 114:
District Attorney: Paul George, Esquire Supervisor, Law Division Philadelphia District Attorney's Office Three South Penn Square Philadelphia, PA 19107-3499
Type of Service: (../) First Class Mail () Certified () Personal Service
Pro Se Appellant: Roy Windom/ Inmate # QA9432 SCI Huntingdon 1100 Pike Street Huntingdon, PA 16652
Type of Service: ()First Class Mail (../)Certified() Personal Service Tracking Number: 7015 0640 0005 7345 6696 Trial Court Attachment A Commonwealth v. Windom CP-51-CR-0005594-2017 1942 EDA 2021 DC-198 MOTION FOR POST CONVICTION COLLATERAL RELIEF Rev.11·11
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COURT AND DOCKET NUMBERS vs FILED MAY 0 7 2021 PCAAUnit CP Criminal Listings To be completed by Clerk of Court
NOTE: List below those informations or indictments & offenses for which ou have not com leted our sentence. INFORMATION OR INDICTMENT NUMBERS:
(' P-5\·C\2.·000550iL.\-J..D\I I WAS CONVICTED OF THE FOLLOWING CRIMES:
Q,,,~ J, o ckM 1 \)'{\\ru'£b rakcl, ,,,?,\i o 'ro\'j)O( I -Rrtl..o~x"::J -=\-"w l.\~\~N& ~· 0.. c.khd. \'\\c\.\tg~· ().")<\<)\\ ~ <>._ ~5-!X\ \q~~
1 Trial Court Attachment ORIGINAL 1 (a) D On Parole (b) D On Probation (c) [l:J Confined in _,._~ [ =- -J. \-4_. . .,1,. ,_,cl_,_.141_,_. 5. +-><-\cl" "o _, ,_=-J-' (d) D Residing at 3 ' IWAS SENTENCEDON---S-OJNm\y \'::>'1v , 2 Q0 TO A TOTAL TERM
l W? - 2 n '1 , ., , coMMENCING oN I .._) - '\\...- OF ~ o...K'i:xoxu \ ~ , 2 _ ......2.....(),,.__ _ _ BY { ~ JUDGE~m \ \ t\ 1 \ CV<\9. #
FOLLOWING A: ~ Trial by jury D Plea of Guilty D Trial by a judge without a jury D Plea of nolo contendere I am ~ Serving D Waiting to serve The Sentence Imposed 4. I AM ELIGIBLE FOR RELIEF BECAUSE OF:
~(I) A violation of the Constitution of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States which, in the circumstances of the particular case, so undermined the truth- determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place.
LS) (II) Ineffective assistance of counsel which, in the circumstances of the particular case, so undermined the truth-determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place.
D (III) A plea of guilty unlawfully induced where the circumstances make it likely that the inducement caused the petitioner to plead guilty and the petitioner is innocent.
D (IV) The improper obstruction by government officials of the petitioner's right of appeal where a meritorious appealable issue existed and was properly preserved in the trial court.
[SJ (V) The unavailability at the time of trial of exculpatory evidence that has subsequently become available and would have changed the outcome of the trial if it had been introduced.
D (VI) The imposition of a sentence greater than the lawful maximum.
D (VII) A proceeding in a tribunal without jurisdiction.
2 Trial Court Attachment ORIGINAL 2 5. I AM ELIGIBLE FOR RELIEF BECAUSE, ALTHOUGH THIS PCRA PETITION IS BEING FILED MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF FINAL JUDGMENT, I HEREBY ALLEGE AND CAN PROVE THAT THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTION HAS BEEN MET:
D (I) My failure to raise this claim previously was the result of interference by government officials with the presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States.
I intend to prove my claim was late due to governmental interference by showing:
D (II) The facts upon which the claims is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence.
The following facts were previously unknown to me:
D (III) The right asserted is a constitutional right that was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States or the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania after the time period provided in this section and has been held by that court to apply retroactively.
The Supreme Court of the United States or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has recognized the following retroactive constitutional rights after my period for filing:
- Trial Court Attachment"' ORIGINAL 3 6. THE FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE ALLEGED ERROR(S) UPON WHICH THIS MOTION IS BASED ARE AS FOLLOWS: (State facts clearly and fully; argument, citations, or discussions of authorities shall not be included.)
(A) I know the following facts to be true of my own personal knowledge:
(B) The following facts were made known to me by means other than my own personal knowledge (Explain how and by whom you are informed):
(C) In the event my appeal is allowed as requested under #4, the following are the matters which I intend to assert on that appeal (Specify the matters to be asserted if appeal is allowed)
~ (\ '.:> h;o.1 (' &"),)~ :s:. '{\&~\)\Q' 'si( ~ ' L 'C\\)'l~b~, J \ ()( > CUC'j'') \\ ~~~ N0."$1\ \'>< ~~o .~ ~i,roki '10% ~~' \)1 e,~,ot ~~\q.~~'mmj\\~cJ\h u.'>~¥4~ ~IO~~<~ C:~~J \ n~W.,~ ~ ciu1dmw ~-\\< ~O<\'\ro<:Q~~~ Q,\~w~ . j ~ .i'/ J . - ~ -~ ~~~\~. ~\cJ.. ~'{om~~~~~\~ ~~c~~~- ~ ~- ~~ ~\~<-~~~~\µ_CU~~~~··· ··-· . ······ .. ·- ···- - ····'· .... -·-··--······--··· - J\ ~RW -~""" ~\oC \ , :\""'- \'~:o.""1 ~ W-_\,_~® \'<\~"~0... Cl-l\\-L __ ~ .~ ~\~"\ ~ ~\~\e>...~-S~r;~ --~\six CO\~ \.>,JO-X\~)~~-\i. '" '}.<.>~. \""\"- \°"" \~~~-\~\)"~~\Wat\~ ~oc ~~ ~J.Jm~ . ,.\).)\,~_-::S:..~· O.~t\~---~·····- - -\~~- ~~~.--S~~~\\S.\\~~ -~\~o~.-~ ~~,~~ ~o. .\x.\c\_,-:\~{L\.\o'(D. ...... I~\> ~'"\~~ . <>.Ni.. \:)O\.)..\,,_. ~ ..~()J,Q., . IX<:>\!\\'.:S\;I\, wd.\u .brr,~ t\S'.l.o\~ ~~~- ~~~~~ \~~\,,, ..o..- .~~~'\- ~-. 6_'<~ O.~~,t1 "1'\V, ~~ .okt-L . . . . . ·- ~- ..c.Jt:o._~~- .'n~ . . \~~\ot'b ~~<'>~~-~~\I\ .... ~~\\~. ~~\~_l:X\\~ __,J,J~~~------· ~ _\..,_~~~-W. ...~=i..!).....~~ -~ -~~:w\~\\-.\.1;)..~~~ .... - - - . . . ----- . - ------- .... ........ ---·
..·~······._i~ ~\, ~~1ot\,\C~~d._~-~~~,o~ ~~~~-.:r.~=- -~-~L-~'0.~--~-·--~'X\..o{\:-S.o:.:>~..~~ '\)t>~~\~~--~----~~---~ }.m. .~:j-~------- ~"- :s:;i;,,,"r~o<\~ ~ .\\.... ""'~- '" '19\L\ ,Ji,.,,\,.; .~ ...W©. ~"""'- \,.._'"""-'i. - . - - ~ .~\~~-· \)).~~--~-~----~4--\'\-3.~~)')\\':l __\~t:.- .\.'(lc.\;.m_s---··~-~~--~n.._\o_ ·-----.. . -~(\c\.i~ h~-~~~~~--~tl__")).~~oM.< _w~ _ Lo.)\~ -~~-~~-""--~~-~~-tx~~~rl. ______ . -~~~.\Qu ...~w.~~~"~- -~~-~Q:~~\{}..,___~-~-~-.~~- .~ --~~--- -~~---~~gL________________... _M_~~~-\.Q!~--~~-~~--~--L~~-'"-i~~ ·-~-~\_~_1_~---~\_u~ .. \J.'..}.~...O- ... ~\.le..-W-~3°0'i\.\~·-'-----· --~~----~-·~ -\~o\~____\.'C\ .....o......"1..;.}:ro.C-X\~.-~t.~ •. (J..:>.~\...c,..... ·~-- ~~--~~-W ------·· · __'i..Q...'AJ.~---~~~---l~o~~ \.~~"-c,.,\~&....w~\t-~~L'<\~. _!>:t\.~... - ..M~---~\,_~__ tlC\.l~----- .~ ~O.~~ . e-0ck...~\.. \,... \:, :=\,~r.,,'I,,~ '1m~.k., · co..i.<:h. .='...._1~b~. _ . -·~~--~b-....~ . -~~----~-~~- . cl,~\~1® . . . 0 ~_ ~\ ~~~-·-~~---~--~---~·--· 1
{ __ -\- _
__ ---~<:;)Qlf\~.---\\~ --~-~w.\~ k\~~~°'rA.~~ -~~- .cX'-2.~ ~()~ ... -~~--~---.~~---~ ....... _ ---~&~~---~--~ .~- .~~.~~- --.. --·· -- .. - . --· . . .. .. . . -· -· ............................... -.... -................ . ....... -... ......... ··--·------....................§ ................ ·-- Trial Court Attachment ---:::S~,.h~-~-~--k~-~~~-~hY_c.._~--- ~~~~~-~t~--~~~-~-'SJ_~~-~~-&e~~~-~~- ~--~~~-~--~~----·-- ~-W.~....Cb.._~__\'Q X4~t'~~~--~-~\J-\~_)~~\OO .. ~~~k_Tha...~°"3\J~U...\."\®!-. ~-~'Q~ C::l.J~-~--k_·~--~il.~~---·~~~-\OC\ .. ~\-·~~~-~~---L\_~~--~~---·-· __
~---~;-~~, h_~\....-~-~-J.._"3.\...""1mx-~~~-- ~-4"C>--~-~-L-~d....~~~---~--~~-~~--~--~~~~~~~-~-~~---- ~llOi..~-~~~~'-'---~~ "~-\.0.~_.:i\.._b!...~~-~~--~~~----1\~..t.c.w-...~-l:.d.~ "'..l'\~-·-·----
~==~~::\:~ ==-~~:~:~~;::_-:_;:~-~~~\-=--~: '\~•-.2:,~-,~~-~\,___k~~~~C>...~~L~l.t..-e.___ _ ~--\.~---~---¥----_'.:b_~__\h.._~_S~o1~6-~-~-~-\~.--~~ct\Q ....~\\~~~-\~(!6_Lb______ _ :I..___~~-~~~---\)~~-~-~-:'L'4..\lrlo ~-~~-~\l..\.c.\>g. __ru.,u.( ... ~~ ~~---l1w. _QC.~.L~~---~-\.m.••'xwzl\f~~k.__k\.~_j~_:1Qtc...W~~ .<()1~--~C ..~v\__~L--···· ~~~\,-~~-~~.)=s.~~om..~.~~~~--1(L.~~\~~--· ~s~~-\..... ~'.:'Ow.\&... ____________ _ :0...~~!.l:::i_.~---w- .... 'fS\-~--~~ ---~--_:\:~--~--~lt\__h\.<;> ..\\:!1~"-"\--h..~i:.\__~~-------- ~--~--~----~--~~\~~\h~~~~~\~...C.Al~~-·\J_\_~,........ -···-·- --·--····-·---· ·--··- ··----··--·--·---··---·--
_ .~-~-~~; ~-~~~~~~~=--~:: -:·-~=~-:-~~~~-:~·~~\.~~----\~:~\:-~~~~~~~-~~~--~~~ . -~~~~.Sf.J__~o~~-~~'d ~-~"@~-~f.~\~... :nQ~.....~nc:Au~--~--~.kr______ _ c.hM.-~~~-'i.i:l-'\\""""~'-~-'~°""-~.cl,., _w= ·--"""'~--J.-~ ---- b.~ni:y-bm\L~--~~--~.J:L~~~--~~--~-Ab~==r~~~ .WD5__o,k__~----~'L----··---·- --~---Js---~~-~\~-3:lo~~~l.\."3-~C.-~~----~!\~---~\\~'Y.~h~--~I("" ---~~~ ..m... h~---~-J.:i~-1 ,.~\~--ok..-~~---~%~-~--\_~~)l_~ .\~~----~h\~.--UA'.;)"-~---·-·-----··- ·--\1\~--·· ~~ ___hl_\.~--.h~-~~-~~C-~n__\Jt:l.~{-~~~,~-~---:~~---\,u- ~mc~~- ~o, __ .JLJ.}~:~~.....-tm.ni~\~g,cL ~~~~~.lu-.-~A: ..~~-~\~ .\\\\i;J__~~- ..UXA~~\-o~L....._. ___ ~~-\Rl\l~~~ ~...\...~~-:___________________ ····--···------·--·---·--··· . --··---·-····--···------···--····---·----··-·-·---···· ·----
.. ·------·---·--·-·-------·---·-····-·-·-···---·-·------------·· -···-·· ------ ··- --···-· ...... ·-··-----·--·····---· .. ·-··-·· --··-·--·-·-··-----·-······-····-····-· ··-6·-···-···· --··. -·· ·-·- Trial Court Attachment - ~·~·---·· v=o•. ·"-' \>'""'~"' o.lk')cJ"'n, ~ ~cJ . ~. rnoO>- ~ mc.x'\~tl\., ~QI\') ...... .
\.n ~~ ~. ')..Q\'h. . ~n~ o.x.. >\)~L. ~ \.'\en~.,~ o.\~·\C)ro_ ~~ ..:Ss.,'l\~_,\~cl, . \D. 1'~\?J ,,~~ . \\\~S\~~ ~i,)\b 'ro~<.\, °'* ~~ ~°'-~ \-~ \.U~~ 10\~,~ k ... -:s__~:<\6.... '(QQro __ v.. .6.\o.x~ o.~\~~~~y~\";) ~~~ ~~~-~--~ ~~~~'{'.~~ ~ ~.:R.. .-\~ \J.,~v -~~'<~'\\::i ~~ -.s_ \.).)c):~ O\~~'\.\.D,~=~\c~~ \b\l.\,°"·\,..'\ow~... J,..~ ~J~(H ~~ er.u..o:"l~---~- '°\~ \,°'W'~ o.:» 0D~ .o'f\\~ ~~ S.\\~~!Jg.,~-~-- ~~~cr::r<:c}... ~'~~ ~o t_c _-\\.~.H_,, ~~- o)~o o.. -D-~~~ "\~ . ~ -:\~.\.'-~N.. ~. \,~_.\~\~. .c
\~ ............. ··-···· ......... ······ ····- ··-··· ....... _.7.... ·-···· ..... Trial Court Attachment ~·of// ~-Tu~ ~~~~:};~.,AC==~~~=~~====~ ~~3)m.~~~...... c,,\..,~-~.t1~.~""\,m-.__"m_.~ok......... . ~~---°-~1.c~~~~~-~--~\u~-·-~-~&.e~_\).)_~\~~~A_ __ ~~~~------·-·--·--· D,_ __ ~..tl-L~~~~ ~~-~~-\D~~\._'.)x:\ ....~~-~IS. Ll~~~-~--~~~-~--·-------··-···-··-·-·· .. ... ~~~--:'-:c..--'S:)o:.~....'.'~~~:.~u..i- -~-- \t\~~buw..~~Js .m~~ .k_\Q:;)\._-n:i __ffi.l2.L.'"--·----- ~~~~''"--~~-?x_~~ .. ~.. -~~.k~.\"~.\:,~"')·~--'~"='""s ··········-··· -~m..~{___~<;\_~~~-mo.c,\JL<-3).0~~ ~~~- ~~-~ -~~- -~~\\--~~-~~4\--- ---·- -~L-~~t.1.--~.-~L~--~~uli____'.\.~~-~-Wt\~_\,_~~~-:~\,~~-~~-~~--------------· ~-~j_Q~---~~,~--~---~~~~~--~'.0..~~-~\~---~~~U'>.-.~~~\d.)~:s-~\~~-i.....~.\\"'-'~\~~---- -~--I__~t_\'.\)iCJ,C~c\.-_~-~-~9 ~'C.._;~~---~-~-~~\cl.~~--~--~--------·--- .. M--~~.w-91~L . .~~-~~--.!a~~~---~~~\.~_,-~~--~-~--~~-$~)Q~__\_Q_ ____________ _ ~~-~---\>..1~--~~-~~~-hs:___~&~_3:i_"~~~~\.~-~--~-~ _?;)M.~~-'m.. .(k.______ _ ~-~-~--°"'~-~0atk1\__~o.\..~.-\),)~--~*,~} \\j,A__~~\o:i\ -~\0-~::i ..~\....:\5:?.'\!'(.µ\~.... ---------- - -~--~~-~~~'1,~---~~\.~hl~\'-~-.hl~~--~---~--~~~\\-~\!::f_;~-:s~\.~---------- ..·- ~~llcK~--~----Q~(r.::L'?l.L\o.~l . ~~o..-.\,r.~-~~22.~.J.~-- -~~~--~\'.5. ...~u:x:11--. ...~1Xl~\ __ u,::i______________ _ ~~~~- . ~~ih..-~\-~~-~"~ ~--~~-~~·~---h.....~~~t"\. . .\l0k~ 1tl~~~.:\~-~ -------- -~~.!.-~\~t~l.~-~~--\)~---~~.i.~cL_\i;;,____~-~----~~B.i.. ..~L~~~--W~\_ __ . ---·····- _ ~..Q.L, .t,cr~...J-:f.h.~6-___k~~~-LQ ..~J.~.\~~\~ ... J.~ . . .~~o1J-._ \~J...~-->.c.& .. ~~------ _______ -~L--:S:-i:.n'\°-. \.,.\on'd -~-=L---o.1\.~~.&...--.~'-- .<.:,0£\\l\~.'?.Q.J __L _ --~~-- wc.s.....c\.....~(l41U.~':.L _ ____ .. --~-- L\.:.u:~...c.'UL-::k ........:28.\!L.....-:l~,... -~o:u- ...~\s;.I.<-~-- ~~\!>.-...-~LA\u._.~\li..r\ ___C'..,~.. -~t:i\.u:=:=\xill~--- _______ ~b-'-----------~-------·--. ------------------·. ---- ----·-·-····----- -- ........................ -··-··· --· ................. -. -.............. ---··-·-· h ......... _ ·---------------- ·-----------·-----·-- ---.---··---. --~----··-·----·----·--------·-----··-- ·-····-··~-~---. ·- ·····--···- --·---··---········-· ·····-····---- ----··-····- . --· - ..... -··. - .. ~---···--····'--····---·-..-- ........··~--· --·-·····-----··- - --·-----------------------------.. .·----·-·--·---- _______..____ . .. .. ·--·-----·· - ................ -.......... ·- . . . ... . ---------.............___ ·--- . . . . ·----s-- -----·------·- Trial Court Attachment 5 c-f II -~ \~. ~~~ \,,q_cl,_ 1o..-\~-J.~1~ o.-\k~,;A'.J_-\_\)t\-(J~kc. _a_q_'- ')..O\'Q \)t)~~\c-..W~ .. . \~~ ~~ ~-~-'roo\~.L~~~~~™---~---3)ti~'9..~~o.'G \.Q~ ~u~~-\P ~ - \'{\~~,~ ~ ~ ~:t\o~~ -~<\ ~~\~\ ·\~~~ -~~~ ~- -~~c. l (}.>.~ ~ . ~'ni:.~ .a'- S~'U.'<"~ ~~ 6,_°\ Of'>-\~ i~~- ~- (j_~\~W .'ro-:J\~ -W~ ~~~~rn,'ll.. _\N_,. ~- (}, ~)o\_ ...t,cu~_\y """" "'''-, W\'\ °""'0. \~ ..~\..... \~i.1.. l>, ~,J,l t"''' ~'j Q.~ ,~oA.~.ch ~30\\.\;~ ~\)~ . ~\~~--~ ~\""\~ ~~\~(}.~~'Ow \\;>'\~ ~\\)\i ~\ . t : \ \ ; _ , -- . ~\~. -~ 0-,~\ .. _~ ~-~~-- W~~~---~\\),).'1'- ~L-~,~~--rr~ Q.J\ _ )s___l.).d~-~\\\~'t"\1,1\f)_U)~SL ____ _ ~~k :\\"'""""'\~ \,~'n'3~.A ".~ "'°"' ""\ l1'~. ~'"- ..->... cl-.·4'\. w~ \e.. '\.}, \),,,,. '~ _ ... ~~~~ ,cV('I&..-_ .'!:>~ c.~~~--~~--'~-\-rg.,,)~_ w~h- _'\(~~--~~~ ~~"'-'·j-<:J.-.~ili ~t:.Lli_ u:=.. 'i)'"-"J \,, \,.,, ~ :'!\.... .\"'-'"""' "'"'°"";""J\,u 4... ~c\_, ~ \§0<."'°'- ~"'4 ~\x,.,\_,, . ~. oo. ~-~~~--\~~~ l9 \~~-- ~o·~~- \-"\c\~ ~----~.:"'---00-\~---'~ -~~--~~~-\~o\~.1~ ___ ... ~ X·~.'.:»yc~-.:i-~--:~-o~.- ~\i.... \.~--~--~- -~o~.. --~\~~u'iw~y-·· \ -~f~-~~~--k--~~l~m._lw. ____ __ w~_\_d.___\~-~---~--::\v___\u{\~~f:~(,,~_\:l ..._~----~tJ\(\~_-jk_ m\)~-0.-~-~~--~--Q,.. -~~-1.'rm~~---u~\_______________ _ ~ro.~~d,. ___ o,.,,\_\_'\LC..~\()..U......_:~--~~~~-----~'~\0-- ..(.\.....\\'1\K~~~Q{0., __\.b.)Q)\cl_~~\.'1R..o.\~_&__~lLk_____ -------- .. '\ \ ' . \ ~(\~-~~---~ds::>.':\i~·'(A.~--~D,___~m\--~'t- _:~\~o-~\.W.- .. w\~~-\.Uco.:..\~ .\-.o.\l:t...._~~\._.Th.. ____________ _ ;:.,.. ~"""""''J.."'···~..;_=,,.i~::::fus_i;u,.><..~.~\,.,_,. E~C."\.~.Ol..1'.'?k .hlJ2~ ...\~~-1=,_Q_\.6_ --~9..1g,\_\~----\.-~-~-~~'.t~t't\\.~ .C'.)u.~.O.~---~~\.___.cJ_\~. --~ ----- ___ -~-Q\k&_ ____ tl_~w:r.....~_\u__ _:\~~~-U-~~~\..__x_u~--D~X--~--(~~-~~-:-I~Q~_\;~:~L_______ _ j-~--~--!>.n~-~- .c\hu ___ t,'1~&~_k~~-\~. \. _\\\\l'w~~1.,\ ..L~\k1\~~\.:_ --~--~- . b.~\~l-. . -.. . :w,J. ~'~ "''~'"- ~~c .au.c.. .-:rk ,'\,,...& """'"'"f .:th. . .,;,\,.,. Q;>,,j...1,_ln ~ ~q_;, , O,,,.c\.... l.il "-" ~'oh >:>.w .\,,,c. '«>~;;~~'") \...ch~"\,~-: ........ ~-\,~ __\>~'-,<,.~ __ Q~-~-~~---\A'.:)·~""-~~---lb~~\Q(\ ... (M\~.~\~--~----~~~~~ ..~----~~~\~ ........ . & i? I/ -~i·--~----~~- ~ch,_-=\-k __0,.~~.\0~.\_:.:L __J._29.. ,_~tl~~-~\\)~.-l.-.~=™~( ·---· _'j~;,,'S__~_\l~t-~\.;,-~iJ,-=0. .-\\,_ l<\L~-' ... ____ : ___ -~s > ~·,L . L\l);,:1'9'<-\ .~~~:S.\1:\. \0_\\._ __~~\~"-,L;..:•.... \ _ ....\.lN.~~~ .:\-\~. ~~--i~_,;,_~~\ciu_,__ _ . ~·--:Y~j:.">\_\:;Q\~... G9~\_<;\_\n__~~ ~~.,;\\.&l. ...~o.~ -~i\.~ ..o.D- _(.~O\..o.\ . . .\lo~.:ffis:.~.'°''\.::i\Js..~ro\c.l_k_ ___.. __ ·--~~ .. ~Q.-~i.t.\IJL.~"o.._'>\. l.k~t\.._.~~\,J~~-Js . :\'N.._ _~~~\N.'C\\.l~'.\O~-\'.;t~S...'ffik._Q.K)~\_\O\\\c~ , ..- - --~~~\..,~...O~\..ILL~\.\s .\):tN...-..~'<.\~_\., ...~~-~ . ~\,_.;~..-~~\X.'S:{:~:-~-~'t.;:.L_W~';;:i ..J~..Q~':Vl~\._.\.n__y_~~-- -\;;L.0,~0.~(\.. ...ox~~ ... ~ . '..\~\\!,~~\QTu, ..l \\ . . ..._W~. ~--:~9- ~ti . . .~.. i\:r~~'\-tj,:>_ ... ~,, ...~-~c\..~__ .\~-~--\:..cx.·~\...k~~--~-------- ~ . . \ \) . . ~c\.dL ..S\\c\,(clv. . 1.Q~q,.\"-:sk~---W~~-- .O...~~t- . ":o::>~~---CY-..... \.-tlk:_. ~\_'(_Il\~~±'n~~~--- . ··~~~(~tl.-. \~~~ -~~~~----~\.. ~~--:s-~~- to..~\. . ~\~~.~~--:~'n~~---(\~)~~~~~onntci-.u.... _\_-c.1..c.'1. _C'.J..--on~.L.ill~'~\--~~\~~~--~\.~ . -\~ . \&U. ...C>.0.(\ ..\~ ..9\>o~. o.nc.\--~---hL_u.:.ro_____ _ ~"'~-l.,o_ ~ :\\,.._ ~~-:'fu~ .0,.,.0..n-'s. CmYL.-""~ \k s;i~, \>-~_S,;.<..1.~\."-t~\...._ ___ _ _~\,m\ti.. .=tr.~.~~. ~-~ ?J\.J~.ct ...k. . . f\,,AA(.\.u:,l.,__ to 'C.zn~L- a.., __ .\.!..qu.~.. :\Q__ ..:+_~ __;,,~M &. ,,,1._o..l:L_. _-jo,,J,,L ______ _ 11 _=\SJ....~d __.:p:£r.ml.<":b\t:i!Y .-:\t._ .b~.\n~ ...-:\~.--.pb . .l.n. ...Roc. ...\ro~lci'~L..(±b!.5_.LJ.2©. . o._,,__ L«f~-.Ab_d:______ ...W~---~!.J!..C ......aKl~~fI cf..,l . . :~~i~.--'.t~-~~·--\))~. -~~ .. DR:,'MY..~ ...l .... ·s;.§.\__.o~~... .:S.:'S..~~~\__ -\~..---·- ---P,'Vtu~l\.J .....'<1-)\cL..\1.:iC\_, \.:o ul. .J:NJ~---l--~---?\.~ . .:\~.. \~.~.\J(\_t.,,,_l~\\il. . ~-~{~~11\--j-~-------···-- ...... ~dQ.(.'0:_~'1\oo...~---· .cJ'-XL.... ~v.c.~ ...:\-s.1.c:iJ.__t.Q.~ --·· ~... \&.-u-...."'l.l~1.'-¥-(\_t3--~\,i(,,,_. \.\.\\o.tro~Kx')._.,hl_________ _ ......~~-.i~---&~Hl~c\ ....'2':~ .... .9~ ... -~~ _}~onN.d.\00. ·--~_ ..\:c\J~ . .1. ........... - .• - . _____.. _ .......... - .......... _ ... --·ur-·--·-·- . . .. ................... .. .Tr.ial.C.o.u.rtAt.tachmenL.___________ '7 of ti . . . .=i,~--\~:k~=·~~--=~~~k:&:=-~-:~~~~=-~:=\'~~~=~: _\f'l_~~~~.-L'CL~~~:x:.Js).6m ~l.."><,'..\_ Y-,)_~~-3~0::-:-~~\.':l... ___1\.~n..-~.!:ti\;~.t-dx_.~--~~------·-- Chia<~~~-~.-~\_ . e-c>~.--~~,\---~~---N.~---u~c.\__*-~-~~~-s:..~l-;ru. _ oc__-'-~n\~~---- ~~C\9-~~-:'.°L~--\~O.C.'ffil~\~~-\ __o,_~~~-\r.L.l\.....\c.~~(-..'V-~N-...u:il\___~{:.~tJ.. __~~-_b~~-~~.--.--. -· \:'{..~\ll,,.~.tn.~--~-~ill.~~-\\-J...-~~~--~~~-~~--r~Vi.~~-~~~~L_\·c~o.l._.,_-\~ . ~---~~.L. ._______ ~~c\_ .~L-~--\)(1.Y~·-°*'-'-~~-\lt-~_\Q. C.\..~°'-\ ....k._\~.Ll&~~~·-·~~y~~L\___in~CL~.ln.\)_'--_·----- ~\-~--~~- -~--~"\ ~:'!.-~.X~--=' _(}:~-~ .\s.~~--t_i.._'QCS~-·-.Ck~_A_:\:~--'\J~S.~-·h_-~\~0.s_ _____ _ ~~. .L~::;i\~.~L._'.'.-.f.llei~'ffid:\6~w~~n~~~--'V~-·-"--:h~u.t__~~---·~~11\... ....S~~--~k.-~~----· L ..Q\_~g_,:t_~c\. .. ::\'n~..\~___mk~.\~----·~~~.--~-Jh~~.~--~\~~~~~ \J(L\'i\.l.. ___k____._ ~. \'i.~t.. ~~----~--~-t.\...~~~.-~cr~~~u_w~-.\_~)-~--~~-·~~.\~..Ql.ttiJ.Wn. ___ ..... \:{__ ,,v.~.~- ~\_~L_\n __ ~~---~~~·--~~~-_...\i!.S..\~__k_c__"~u\0. . ~~~~~-~~'n-~~-&~);~cL-..------- 1'0~9.'.'.\_ro~\:\~ .. ~ ... ~'t:t~~\~.--~~~-.:.~~;c.,c_~.-~~\!\...~--~--~~~~--~~------ -\\,.... lcm).,Cl<\ ... ~···-~--'LX>"\~-·· 'W>.."1""'.:l~""'·m.\ .'h9.\':\._~..9'-'i,,,_j_QJfa.~t1... ~-- ~\Q.._\a,~___ (..Q:r.6~cl..__dl__~~~.g_ll_._~~. ~:?..},.__·-~~J.'f··-r-~c'---·-~-\&~-~\~_c_~i.LlJi~oill.----- .w_~~-.:\~~-· -:s~·~f~.h~,~t~~··-~~.h~..)\ _9J?.~b . ±\1u.,~_\_c__\\Q~~~--~1Jf.~~--~----. Z~.J.$_, .... t~---~---~~C\\ilL__~--.\:1?.~\.)\Ck( .... ~2i\.{:L'.\1\5LC:;f~oP-·lli·-~-~~~--~i\~~-~u...~k\~-- L\1J~)__\.,QQ.)~.ch-...1.NL&...___~~&...\u\~~cl'::>...~ . ..'i1~~~---'-~~--~~~.~-~L~.-·..L~\tt.ll.Cai_ ~'---~s.,~~!.c.~\~....k.~~~\~_~_\\h>,')~X~\ _2\. .. -~<-:.SI}~~--':\..~"\~\"\~~sY-~ .....\J~ ,'.:hI\, 19\Q_ _____________ 3'n1~~'!\w.~....\&d\1.2.\£.,:S:.n.~.... broc;.=;00..'1:!>. . . .~\.,.-~-.. ~--~~-..\k..r-··· ... ~~2~~-.w~----S~)~\-..~~~--~\~\~_§.,~~b....~"L.._Ll_tl~cl\~--·'1\..._\~-h~----\~.-- ~\\~~\1c<\..Pn\.\~.~~':i'.l~~--\-\~-~Q\l. . .:d,<:\_._m1).___ ~...-w.~li~.-~i:.L~-\..~~-------·. ~- ..~.\.~~-·-~---~~'S!....-~\~\~&..-~n..~\~~--·~~--\.1,.-'C...~~~~~--'C'M.";f;Q<•f' ':n.~---· :~<)'-'l\CX. S\\b._~~l.:n~~~~---~--~~4'~--·-~--~-·-l~~~-'£\.Q~Q,,)~~u,~---- )~--~--b·~---~----·~~~ocL_. ..:\co. . ~...m..~~--:\~---~nd.~d.o.ol\\__~~_J~L <:xJ ?--tt)ex.~. __ \·~ \~. -~I:f~·-···ffi~-_b~_\,~\ll_-~ _\!.\0..~~)0-~\'-\·--~~.--~':'.l,,._~~-~~~ ..-.-·-···-:......._ ~:ii\._ux:cic\,....\-&--..~\u\._r..\\ J, _~\uu...~-~~ lV-.~~L~-- .ill.C>.~---·s\i~ ·-·-~ _0,j___~o_,--\. . \~~~~()~~~~\~~ \~,J_ -~~\ .W~'<-"-l \-~~- ~';:o~~ w.~ ~~~l ~~~ _~ xx,\\~ .0~\wr~ ~ --~ -~~~~ \~ .tJ~- ~(\. '.10\b \f rJ\ ~"c·ro. ()~ :-\""~ -~~. ~- 0~ -w\i< \XI ~- .\-~ -~~~ ~\t~)~{\,. ~rn~ ~"'O~~\ \n:-~~,~~ ~\..;A:~ ~- ~\;\ '~ro\*-~ C:>\"\ \~ '~°'""~ \OO ~ bti~ ~~' (,~') ti.-(\c\.. ~~ ~'~ ~\'IC -~tt,}\.,_~'(_\~ -~~~ \~~ \-uA ~~::A).(~~ '{..'i,~&.., ~~~~~ ~ \)'"..;)\\)~~~\a-~\~ ~~--~~~-~..\-~~ ~- \0~~--\'N.,,~~\00.~'!? ~\~ \0~-~CIN--~~~r..., \Q\~ A~\i ~~J _~ -~~ --~~ )\\.~s~\~~ ~\~ ,~!.)~~ ~ ~~ ~~- ~~'rmm~.:-fu.~ .. ~-'~~·\ ~~--c~\\":J~ - - - -- ... ... ... . . . ........ ·-·. ·-- . - .. . \) . ~ . . \~ . ~-- \\ __ d.\~1~ol __ ::~rO\€.C\o\v.Wcl~~ .\'N., -'.Y~- _(.\)rru\~ \~x\~~--~b-'m6Smj ~D:\oc~\.°'1., c\ _--~_ti)kwc _~~ . '{ ~)~~~-~\~. \)~ _(,"~\~ \~c~u\ . \?t -~~l\\~W~ -~~-~ -'~- _t.o.,)_{\~-~~. :'D9 ~~ -~~~ \~o~~~,c~ \~ mc0.\ ':~ ~\~~W"·•:~L l.CC~. io\w~--~\l\.k_\~ _____ ... . ~~~~::o'-0 .e~__\~.-y\.o\~~ vJ..~ 0- 1 ~~ ~t~~~I:.. M~\'\~ ~--·_:\k__\)~-~\J. '?~~-- ........ . .0- -c~~ -\~--~~\~\® .:\~~ ?\C.~ .\'(\o.\ ~~\ V)(.l~ ll\. ?J~\Ol\ ~- ~hru_ __ cJk ffittJ~k-2.olt ..... _ .... 12 Trial Court Attachment ~ of ff ·----~·- ~m~~~-~t\Th\J?.dv. --~!:f~~Q{'.:~~---ffi.'~~0~--1.r.--_~1.~-Q.,~~\~.. -~~~~ .... . ~~-.~~-\~~~~--~\l~--~-~\,~u __-\'n~\-~~s~~~~~--Q,~__s:~~~~~_k_____<),,()\i\_ .......... . ~\~~-.a~ -~~~~~'\~-~~~-o1. ~ ~--~~~!! .. ~~~\n~~--~~--~~lX\~\)L ().X\.~ --~-'-.Q.\, __~&.-~~~~-·~~-·~ \_.\q_, ~'-!\d,~~--~'Q.__'(_.g_,_~'.C~-'--·-- ·--- -· . - . ··--·- ----- ·-· ....... . _.. :-S)o,&o..-~tt> . e''"S~':\ '"-"""'\..O. ~'{ ~\~~' ~'!.~~~~·- 3.:::h~&~~ -~-~--- -~~':f;>~ • ~--=-\~\ ~-----~ -~~s.~~~S.:.,____\_~~ ..iiw.. _.. .\\)::_1- .W~----~l.)~~----\\;)_-:_'.:l\::_'_\~ \--~-- ~O'\>~~~~- ..OS:--~~~\ _ ·\_~~~~----~.__Dn_ _ _\~-=-~:::.\~ -· ·-- -· ...v~L~'.L ~~om~~---~\~~·-_\c_ .~£.!-.'.)~ \\. ~~\l)'li.~\. ~-!:P"""~ ~=-\o:cl m~;,;.a~ '" ~('.,"°";""': .......... . :S..C"j'~ ~-~ Sc<.V-">h.J_ ~;.,\OUU'.;>. ~-~'".'."'\~..s::K-~ro."i \'\ ..... . ~-~----D~~~~--'~-\~. tQ~{\~~ol~--C~~-~~~~-~-~-~---\.C\__ ~~~---·..Q..,\CfJ~~-- .. . u~~:. ...~ ~,\,aM.C .o1\~c\.~ ....<0,\QX\\._m ~.•W..&n.~-~.~.tl-·6.....~.. ~~S:icr..&.,_~.~--=-~~~l"'j·· ~~. L].;.l~-~~ . ~ . . ~.~~>~.().n ·----·--·-·--·-·- ......... ·-·--·-·-··-·-··----·------------·-----··-···-·· -· ................... ·····--·····-- ··--··-··----·-· -·· -· --···- ..... --- .. . ··- ---··-· ...... .. -------- --- ··-·-··-· .... ----····· 13.. ... ·-· -··--·-------···-····-- ·---------------------·-·-·-···-·· ____ ............ ··-····-· ---·-·------------·- _____ ·--···- -···--- _______ .IrialC~.u.rt.A.tt~~hm~1!L.._... . \)ti~~(.S~(\'1<.~ \~ ~\\~\~~..\'0~~'~10'(\) .0-00 ~~~\~.a:<..~~<:.<..~~\~-'-~- ... -~~\. . .... · · - ....... ·····-- ..... -··- .. .. ·- - .., -· - ····•·· --- -- ~Qo \~w.< c:\~ .~'(O:\\\ \)'n,\o.~\\)\\~. ,\).Q~g_;{ ~OJ:x}J.~ ~0 '({.(.Q~i}.~ \DC'C~-~--~~.\!.t<'. .., ::.\-~ -&'-\~'!:>. ~- ~·~ . .'rN..., --~ . CW:~\'~\ \v. . Q.~,,,\\... lD-\~'()t\., ~-i~'la~\~~\\0"\. ~:t~:f\ __\)~~~\?~'~---·Q.&~----- -·--- ·-·--· - • "Thib.. \~"',,,.}..,;,., '->Xhl\0-. ~"" \; ....... ~- ""'""\,.. o.h,~ _,\,,_\:,,~ ~ tm -·-- ~ \6.. \'f) ... -~'o~D,~\~\.1~~--:t~_\..(ii~--G.<\<::o____~S\\w.-j~~---~~_\~ ___\.~~~~----J.__~~~-- ·-~~~\~..:l_....:\~.- -~~~~~ ·--~~-~b_~\Cl\~-~----·-:s_o,.\~:-:s~~--'---·--·-··---------·-··-·----·-----------·---------- ··- .... -·······-· -··--- ···-·-- ·--······· ······-·T4--- ··-·---··-··- - ............ I.ri.~I.C_qyrtAtt3~Jun~_n_t _______ .. \ '\~C\l.J~~c\_ ~"{\~._\ t_(j,,)~ ~ c.,l':::1-) ~0\~~ ~\)~ ~~'1'<~~ ~-~,'j\...\~ ~~~C>~~\it\.J C.'""~~~ w~,:~x~'~ \~ l. \\-~<\· \S "'~~ \o V~ ~. ,~~\~\\)~ ~~ ~~\~ '"'~~ C)~s~cl ~~\\\~ \\~ 'J\~~ \.>:)~ ~ '0\>~l::>°V~ \'()\..C)\\~\~::~~l.\~ \n"-\c\~\. ~\.. ~~ i,)fl<:.~c~ '\-{.~\\ \os \'°'~ '-1.\'0~ ·'\CV<'l0.. ~~ \~~ w~ -v.:.\:i~C "nc--~ ·~~~ \)c~ti_\~~ . ~ .\~ (>,-~\\~ \~ <';:,~;,.~\~~ . '\(~'0~~0-. ~~ ~\"'.>~ ~ \y_~~ ·~~\v,():i(\~ ~~~ ~ ~~~Q.. "\'N~~~~%\'liJN ~\~~\~cs·~~\,~~ -\~~ ·~ ~~\<:3\\..\~ ~._,~ ~'.>~:\....~ ~~~~\o<"·l\·'-~~~ ·~~\(),~ b,~\'-\ ~'\"~ ))l;j,~\~ J\~ ~~ \~\. C.<>:>\ \J \~ .\\,,.. ~\. ~ '=''"'\ \>'<>:> ,~\,.,, ~'""'- ·~ ~ m"1 "'~" ~ w\..w ~~ ~~ w~ °'~,~~\., :N~,\.. e~ ~,\\~ \N~~~~.J '~v ~ ~\e>X\'=>C)..~'~ (>.. I'. ~~~~· 0~0\~ ~~x..~~ \~ ~\.\\).~\~;w \~~ t\}~ ~ ~'' \.~X'ffi\~~clv ~ ~w~ ((,\).~. \,U'\~ ~~ ~~ SO~t:M'~ .\c ~'\~ 1~.L~~''{ ~'J \~ ~ t~ ~ -\-~ ~.QX'({'\~\(oXv 15 Trial Court Attachment II of II ~~e-\ ~\\~ "'\(~\ ~~ -\~ (J)<::> ·\~CO(ck m ~~'(·\\ <:i~ '}..c>\<\ 'oo\ d,.\c~~ ~''U.-1 1 \~ \o ~'~ ~ \~~ ~'o'< \c ..\nc.~ ,'ro\ O<\\'-\ ·~~ ~~ ~ ~\,~( J -\~ 0<\~\. ~ .\~ '-\ \•.)\ <3-X'0. '\'~()~\\ll\.., \~ ~ ~ \'N.., ~\ ~'\'NI.- ~~ ~ \\.'1-.'LV( .\'< ,e,,.\ '-'--v\\'.:>~ \.).)~ ~ ~~ ~\~\4<... \1.>\\.\, ~\Q.1;.\,0\"\i. ~'~ C:.OX\ \~ ~''<''IN-t\.J ~ \~\~~'~) \~ m~\ \{.uo"~·~ ~ \~o.,\ .._\l.1~.\ \~ ~{\'~' ~ ~\~~ -\~ V)UV '(\O ~{C,,~~v{\\~ ~JWi-., ~~~~ ~\ \'<,~\ ('_(A..~ ~o~ ~~~ ~°'0-'~ ')\>\a \~,Ji --:;:_ ~·~ \~C\\)~ ()_, ~GX'(\\'{\~\Q'-l ~ ~. <:,cJ.\<:J \l-.0._ \..).,:)~'"' \..,c.J. ~~ . :~\w~~~ ~ \\~ \X~'l.\J\ ~...... \).)~ ~·>-:) 'Y'"l.'.:>~~ \'(\ ~~ ~S ~~~c·~O.?:>. ,~ct' ccs•.•;-•,~~i \: ~ -\~ ~~\:,~ ~~- - --=·=··· ~ ~=••·· •· · · .S~nc>-\•.~-"'~_\X\~~,"~··~~\,':J\,_~(\~~·~·~:.l_.- .• _ --~~Q~.- .\~',t~~"-~~\<:lN __:_\~\o -~--'~~-~o ~~~~~-~-D--~~~®-~---~~~~~ ~~k ~---S;>.~;:i~~~~~9~..? ...~~-~o~~~~Q~----~-~\._~~-~Q. ...~~--~~- ... .. \o~\t'"_Q':C ~- '~ ~~-~~'U.J .\~ ~~~~ IQ~~~~'-ct.\~.cl.L~------ _ --~~~\Q(',_!>_ -~~--~~~~--' ... ---- ............ ·• .. .... - . ···-· ·- . - .... ·-··· ·-- ·····-·-···· -·-·--···-····--·· .... --··· ... -- . . ······· ··-·--· -···-··-···--·····-·· .····-··· --············ .. . ··---- . . .. -.-·· .... . . . -· .'\;>. -· ·:·· .. ··-···-·····- ··- .. -· ·······-· ..·· .. -· . . ·······-··· ... ~- -----·-.----~-. . -~,a,\ · - <::.=~ .,_,;,= y,,..'\\.,~,"-~-\o~ ~~\'"\~" . '""clt''\~ -~'"'-' - - - ---~___'1.,9\t\ __ C,\)..\~~~ore___ _ ... _.. ___ .·---... ________ .......·................ -----------·--··· ___ ---···· _ ___ ...-·---····---·---------·--·-------------·-------····-------------------·--···--q·--- ··-- ----~----········· ·-···· - ---·· - ·----- - ·- .. -··-------·-----------~·---- ------ -·--- ··-~"'~····~·-""~ .\I\.'?.\\.d,,""-'·~~\,"\\"' """"~· -\~ .'j_QJ;\~ -·· ·-· ...:ln~~~\~~---.-~Q~1~--~- ~-'~·\-~~~~-- .:\ ("\_ \~-:&.t~--~~~ ·--~~~ti~---~-\~-k....~ _____ _ -2:>"1.~ ~=<>ch ""'.J--~'\~\..,,:"":\. ~,,;,, _\!)~\-:: \'\, .'.Sr'l.-_\':\~-~:6:.\.L\ _~_xoo~~- __ ...... . ____ \Q.-:.'{h.C\-\S__ :\-...().::l.~~\.. -~---·.:.\\:- \°b-:- \:5._.~_.\\~~C\-\5.•.. - ... -···· . ---- .··-···· . . - - . -.. --····----- -·-· -· -·· . --·-··--------· __h3~_):~. C\:ffi~--~~~--~Q _\_~~\~--~~\\u___oc__.~----W. ~.\uh_£~~----·c·-· C' .. .. ---~i-_co;~L. _l_ ~ _ _ t:.o.n~~.\,~~- 1)0{~~----cu:-.cl....~'C-----~\~ffi___ _ _ '1.\.-::\Acli.l_., -«-'!:~~ -"-' .-~~.._, _\,...C>JL"x\ ~ \~--"-¥-~- --· ..... -~\\ona< ....:\.i.. oR.~~-~ ~~ ~nh-~L-~\~ -~-\,~-~ . . -~g._,_.:s'hore. ____ ~)_c.L ______~rn~...6~---~ .. ~.:1~Jm.n~_y ___\(X)\,___ ~~--~.l.L . . _ -~~-L\s;,~K--.-~.L~W~~~------~:~.~- ~ ..Q~ \.«-;.••t_M-.:>mtl.~=-~J~~ . . :\<:K.~·<~>yn--~J...dl.A.\Jl.;..~:-._\~=········ 'x' "-"'~~~'-'."'3 ~'~"--"'~1"~"" ~ \.); . --~""' ~ \.),~ ~:L ... _'Q)~-~~--\ '.\.~~:_, ~~.-~ ..0\n~~~~--~,;b~--~~--~~-\ ... ~ ... . \J..~\.-;,.,o~ .-Q-'{;,~ ... ,..,~.k,. °.5"'1.JL. ""'S>\;\,;,~_-=\l.\OC~~L~ .~.. .............. . --~-~--~~~\~-~-C--.~-C\D............. ·····----···- --·-··------·---------·-------·········-···-··-····------·-··--··-··········· ... . ~~~;~~~ · .. ·~~. __ ~,,~u_~··~==·····~····\~~~~\= .'~.\~······· ~o':(.. Js___~_.:~~~~· ~a. ~ -~-~~-.~--~~cn, ~\\m.\~ \~--~~h. -· · __ __ .. ~"1\~~"'.,£,~.~ C>,,,.~~,,i__C>&.,.,\\.~ ~~~o.m.i.mi..~ .<;..., . ...'-n ...-'\..9\'l....... c.\.X\6-... ~~ .~~~-~ ... ~a'-~\.~....~\_\'\.~ '.l2\~ .. ~~-~. ~J. ....~~ ...... . --~---~Tu~_\J.. . . fl_o\L.\ ~~~-\~ \_~_"\:)_i;is-~~W~-"--~~~-~0-~~-~ . . _ -~ ~-~D~~~ .e>&~~ot-~--~~\u~~l;)'CO.• ... . --- -- ~·~~-·····~"°~··~~. \~\~~4~~~i:,~ ""~-~.~J<\~·.······· ~- ~~- '( \..)\~ .9':\ -'<~-9\~~ ~\".'\~~ \n. ~~- \t:l'i.~ -~- k_\tl)~\~~.-~c;)~j~. _. . __ h~ri ~ '"9lllb.\~~.i:\~\~\,,;\,~~- ""\~~~········ ... . ~,_:i.··. ~ . ~·~·· '"~~~'~ ~~\,"'j ~~ ~~~ ~ ~W\v -~go\j_\).X_~~ .. .. - ......... - ·-· ... - ... . .----->< - -----------·-· -·-·····- ·-·- -···· - . .. ··- •..•.... ·- - --· .•. . ···-· ...• - ·-··· - - . . . ··- ··- .. .•.. .. .. .. . \~::'\',;o), ~ ~"....~.~'""""' ~ \.,.,.:"":S 'i'.};,'>rw...- ~><......,\ U..1:>(,~ \~ """"' ,,d, _~1.:>-g_~-~OY'.'C> 0-X\ti.... ~~~- \o. f\~ 'no.'~-.L.~~- . '~--- -~~- "\..~'!?_, ... ~\u~ --~ ~ ... '.'-j __ -~-~~----D'< .. \~ '(U~~-j_\p \~N~. C'..N~.. ~.~~~~- . ~~)~«;"1 .C,~ ~= ,.,.~d"~ ~ ~~"'"~ \i. \~\~ hJc0\ ..... -~~ --~~.·~,\\u w~c-. 3"")_Q- \?;)~ .~\;)~ c:;:,:romkc\..., . ~~. ro=i;ix;Ou:)s ,tc"nl'LL~l"j . ;~M'.\_, ,.,,,_\,,.1..., ~"--'- \~~"" .~. >l\D ~ . ~~~-~. '>m ~~~· .:e..~ '-~~~- -··---·- ·- .... --·- ·- ·-·--- - .. -· -· ---.-·- .\~~-- .~mM\c.~---~- .~:'.\.m~ _. 6-'?.X\-,~~-~\\o\\IU. -~ ~w.c..\~ \~. L~\~s,\~-~J_ '.ffi~b®~~--\- . ~~~~~)\.~ __\),";;.2~~~ -~~~: ...... ---· ·- ..... ·- ... ---·'"·----··-····- -··- ----- _J_~·t,~\_ ~~~~\---~-~.)~\~1::b,~ ~i::i\'....~c.>.\_,_~--~~ _,l'~±_\~---~Q-~~ \i:.. .... ck"".;;,;:..._\~,-~\1..::~.oA ____ _ -...'.~\ . :s~._-s.~~~---·\. ~t.:.\...~\'!> ..~'~C~---~---~"S<,;i~ •.O..~~-'-~~Qo.. :..~~::::s-~\.. W·~/<..L_.-~\~~\.. ....... . 19 ···--·· --·-·····-·-···· .... -·- --· -~- ···-··--······· ····-··· ···------·---··--···. . -.. ---·-··· -·--········- --····-··· · · -·-·· ··-·-··-··--·· ·· · -·· -··-- .'.f.r-ial-C-ourt-A-ttaehment----------· ·· -· - 7. SUPPORTING EXHIBITS (A) In support of this motion I have attached as exhibits: l'e/tfer 1~ 0 Affidavits [Exhibit(s) No. I J tJ_//orN-t J ~Records ~ Other Supporting Evidence [Exhibit(s) No. 7:::£ [Exhibit(•) N o . ! : (B) I have not attached any affidavits, records or other supporting evidence because · ] ] 8. I HAVE TAKEN THE FOLLOWING ACTION(S) TO SECURE RELIEF FROM MY CONVICTION(S) OR SENTENCE(S): (A) Direct Appeal (IF "YES," name the court(s) to which appeal(s) was/were taken, date, term and number, and result.) [lj YES 0No ~)~\o
(B) Previous proceedings in the courts of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania D YES [A NO (IF "YES," name the type of proceedings (such as habeas corpus, etc.) - including former proceedings under the Post Conviction Hearing Act the Court(s) in which petition(s) was/were filed, date, term and number, and result, including all appeals.) (C) Habeas Corpus or other petitions in Federal Courts D YES est NO (IF "YES," name the district in which petition(s) was/were filed, date(s), Court Number-civil action or miscellaneous, and result, including all appeals.) (D) Other legal proceedings D YES [Kl NO (IF "YES," give complete details-type of action, court in which filed, date, term and number, and result, including all appeals.) 20 Trial Court Attachment ORIGINAL 5 9. FOLLOWING MY ARREST, I WAS REPRESENTED BY THE FOLLOWING LAWYER(S): (Give the lawyer's name and the proceeding at which he/she represented you.) ~IC bg ( c\..-S I ~ ~ ~· 'U _:r~~L ~ oXJ ·~ - 9:c:£ 1~ ff'.Cl.£! I \ - ~ :c ~('l ~'b&c~~m. ~ •. '\tD~~ - ~@~'X~ ~~Hci; ~~~! 10. I PREVIOUSLY CHALLENGED MY CONVICTION IN THE FOLLOWING COURTS: Court Caption Term Number Attorney Relief Requested Sqe;no< · ioq \\. ,\_\j; o'om , '1. ~~: , ~OJ ELA 201,Q, ~01~~\0h_J ' \ . 'f{\~mk0-1 \\n~cl " .~q1~fiu11 iii~~ . . ;1~1~~ B~1~~~~, . ~S~~I i U s ~i~·~ 1 11. THE ISSUES WHICH I HAVE RAISED IN THIS MOTION HAVE NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY LITIGATED OR ONE OF THE FOLLOWING APPLIES: D (I) The allegation of error has not been waived. cs. (II) If the allegation of error has been waived, the alleged error has resulted in the conviction or affirmation of sentence of an innocent individual. The failure to litigate this issue(s) prior to or during trial or on direct appeal could not have been the result of any rational, strategic, or tactical decision by counsel. 12. BECAUSE OF THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE RELIEF WHICH I DESIRE IS: (A)~ Release from custody and discharge (B) [Xj Anew trial Witness Name: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Witness Address: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Witness Date of Birth: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Witness Testimony: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 14. Based upon the exceptional circumstances set forth below, I request that the District Attorney produce the following documents: 22 ORIGINAL 7 15. I ask that the Court consider the following argument, citation and discussion of authorities: 16. (A) I am D ABLE ~ NOT ABLE to pay the cost of this proceeding. (B) My other financial resources are: \'tono ~ ~'=" ==\,it.. 17. (A) D I do not have a lawyer and I am without financial resources or otherwise unable to obtain a lawyer. (1) ~ I request the court to appoint a lawyer to represent me. (2) D I do not want a lawyer to represent me. (B) D I am represented by a lawyer. (Give name and address of your lawyer.) 23 ORIGINAL 8 ~ o.~\, ~~ (,\10A ~o C,0'(\\!>\<.kx -\\'IQ.. ~c\\\>~i(\~ CJJ\°Jv·~ <::..-~~'®.' C>.i0d-.. 6\SCJJ~\ct\ ~ (),v~\tt~it.5 1 ~ 'o\J\\.,. ~ ~ ~\ ~~'<\~ ~~-,J. 4 ~~ -\~ c.~\~\\o'\f_) ~n~ \'{\Q.., \\w.e., ~~"-leµ;\~ \.0,i).~-.) ~ D\i~.\\.,O~~~ ~, .\-~ '':>~'{ ~~\O('(j_ '\'<-0. ~-:, \.~ ()..tt~::i~~ \_µ~ ~\\~ CK\\~~~ ~ ~\~~ ~ \~ \\i., ~\~( ~ (}.J\ ~o.~-\ l ~iv6~~ 0'< ~v\~ \\J.X, ~(\(~ O\\ ~( \,,~.iic.\~ (X:\c)_, ~\\ ~o ~ \~ ~\\J;:)(C~\~ Ll'-~ , \'ru... ~\'!.~~ \~c\.vw.1~ ·~(\\\\-11b l\.. <:.A\m'\'~ ~~~'\~~ n~ 'J~ ~'\\':)€.\ ti..* e_,~~~ ,~ ~~\ \)w~\-i.(.u~ '"().'~ cM:.\l)~~tl \~~'(,;\\~cl~~~ c\J~~m1~ w~\4'( cs< n~ ~,~,\ ~\f~\ w~o ~~~t1~'~'. L,'J-\\~ \J.-')\f:RJ\~ ().'';)°:)\'~ ~ ~'{\':x\ ":i\\i\.\l~ ~ ~""':i \, \XX\ 24 Trial Court Attachment ~°::> o.~~ \{\SL~ " " '(_,.< \'('(\\~ \l!-w' l\i.,,.\.-\ - t.v0·i\~;:_;\~ (\lJ\,~ , -:S:.n \~.,~~'"<;) o.,.., t,, '"''"<0, <:\,...~o.~ \ ~"\)(\"_;<,\ C!J.,'<,'O (}.. o~'-\ \o ~ c),~ ,}, \:,'\~"-\ \ (). O.~\'\ ...,~ \).'\O\c\ CJ,J~\~ ~ '~~().~, oJ.-~ ~ \4 o.~~Z:\\Ol~ \\\~'ffiU,\. ~ '~~().,'(\.,\ ~'U,\o~~J~ \'<\, c.. --\~ U\)'\~ ~- ~~ <'0t,.)~°'\'"'~ ~o.~ 0.i0\\. ~ C'...\·~.:i.'('f\$ \:i ~ O-'·:f;,o.\~~ \'("\ ~\,\":) ·mo\,~ \ ou\\m~1:,\. \"''1\)\'\\.Q.X(j.j'.) \'(\\J'lc~,~~\'U..- iyo\~·~ ~~\ ~<\\~ ~\\'~ ~ \oc\, \\~C, \2.c~\"\C.~ ~\c:m ~ \\\~\J. ~\t'\cJ\o\.O \n 'lo\4.\ ~ \~ci~ mo.~ 1n l)..O\b '\ (Jb '-\W \.0~\ fl~ \'("\ .\~ \~'6 \:!.1;;.~r1'-~'"~ ~\<,.,, \\\~\()! ~\6'"\!l,(° \J0~\c~ ~~ ~ ~'~'j J., ~~ ~:iv~\)\{\_, "''H~ \o ~ \\\\Jcl'\c1:_~ \.\J\\~ c:..,"'~\o..>.~0-.i -\o \X aO.~c..Q.., l'-- \~\,~ ~<:\ ~\~xc..\ '~ \\\J.... ~ ~~~-w~. ~ <..0.·:x:i \J'\\~~~ooc\.. -%cJ- \\\OH~~X \v U-<.Q~ \!'-' ~~~'\LIV \,N.., ~ ~~~Y'.)C., \ tj{:iQ ~ -\\.°'* ·~ o~ ~""lA,~ -\w t;..."0\d- c.~\cw ~~w.:sSJ(\:,\. ~\0-i.~~\\~ \o ~~\~ (~'~ . 0Q)\O. ~ \~ ~ ·'U\~\GX'\\\.Q..J. ~o< -\~ ~~\s,'\~100'._) ~ ~ -\'<~ Qt:i.0'<1\. '\\o l-\OJ v.; ·~\ ~ ~'(D\'i\.J ~ '1..-\J.\b~ ~'(~'~\\...\~(.\._ <:i-,,\ ~\J.. -\~ \\-\~~'.) \.\:~~c\ ~ ~'(\J.. \_(\)\\~\ G.\\ Q..:.,\0-., ~.u.'W~0.. ~cL -\ ~ ~~ ~"\ \ ~~. -S:.. '\·tC\~~~~A. c~ ~ ,J_ \e> \~~o.,\\'\ \'{\\\~~'~J:-v \~ \'\\o\ 1\l-1<.. ~-~\ -\\,1v C!..CIJW)i;:_\ ~ 1)'\l~(l;( \s,, 'Lo\b o..\\_,__~~'o' :..a\\~l(t\\\\~ \~ •1~~ \~ Q.~\,~ ~ \\~ t-v--\ ~ -\~\ ~ \\JL-~ ~\\'\\j Dox~ ~woo °J..J,~\0-c0. c~~'-- 'IW-lk ~Q.~~J~~ \n \~'.:~:PX c1':. \o \-<..~ct ~ ~ C,l..~~ D.\ul't\O\~ "'\"\,~ \-JtLl \c nc\ oo\~ w \W()\\O\ <0...- ~'(Q\'(\.. ~ -~~b\cl, b..A- -\\10...,\ ~ ~ \,c\\w: --s()~\~\v \ 0\~CP_; \_°*l.'.A'\°'-'1 N..\>~ ~~ Trial Court Attachment D0,~0-- ~c:;o 0-<.:\x\~~~°JX... Th\ ~\'{\\(.,1;_,o\ t0\,\~\Q'\, \o \\L \~~~~' (}•)v:i~\\ ~ C\.X\~~ o-ISX ~"- ":~.x \~':::> . ~ \"~. \''\9.."':{~~~ \ic~~\~\"\.\C>- \_'\\;)\\'j Q.x\e\. Th\~\~. o.~\~.x ~ ~j \~\~.A. e-~~ ~ ~~ ~~~'~ ~\~\\~ ci~~\:A\\~~~\ '\~<-\)~~ ~ ~ \ \)(.\\ ~ \'\\~ \~ e.A~~\C\'b, Do'\~ :un~-i~~~~\ ~~c\ o-~ ~ ~~ ~ w ~\.s ~t ~~'<" ~\4.- ~ 'Oo~ ~\RJ\ ~ wo.<::, ~\H\.. ~ -\~ c_0._\,.~,~\\<:l CU\0,_ ~ \~~ ~ ~\:,_~ ~,J,_, 'Ni\\.\\\~, -s=_ .!L~\)\~ru.~ '.\o \no\ ~10\\~\ \~~ \~.k.. ~~~~ \><.l.)t,~\si)._\ ~~~ "~X\.it~;:, ~ ~'-)~~e, ~~(~ .\:o\_, ~\().1:.:<..- ~ -\\,'5 \i~ \V::.~'~ k\.. \<::> \cJR,\C>- '\_.,\Ott> ~rn"'_) ~\'\~\._ ()'(\ \).)~\. \~ \c.~ ~~~,\)()'\~\~'..:) ·~(>~,~~ ~~~ ~ <}.0"\\~ \~ \\-\''\-\'.J \ (j..X-.e,\. ·~\'=>~"I \)0\~~~·.:i ()\"\I.\ \,™-" ~'-l-U ~\~\~ ~ \'~\~\J.. s,~~\Q\\'".)\ c:.,o~\.\'N._~\. w-\\. \Jo\~\\o,_ ~\;!,_,~~~~~~ ~~ \.~~ ~~·-:io-<-\~t::l, ·\~-~ ~CJ.l~o \w·\<\..\~\"'\<>-- \_'\1;·ro G.~'-'-'~'~ -y10\,\o~( ~ \:x_,~ \~·~~.:i~ \o~ ~ \~"$.:> ~ \\x( 'J~ ~ -\\-\}.,.,\ "::>~~~iv 0-~ \':;) ().. ~\1 d... ~o..r=>,~ ~O'( wo\"\,A./, (>..'::\..\.)~ ..\\ ~~ ...::::>~~\'~'~ \:-~ ~~ NJ.~t-\... ~\"''''.o'C!> \-\Jc, \>.:;1:0\~ \~_c1.0. Dc\~\0-, \o '\\\~~\ ~ ~~~ cM~~~\6'\\().~~\ \o''-\~'.:l \;\\w\\,~~"N-"5.:> ~ '--\-~\~''\-l- \~ \>.:'::> \'('l~,c0.,\~ ~c:\ ~WQ.... \-.;) CJ;.'Q~ os,o;:.\ ~~,.,\:.~-t,.; \.~·~·,~~~"\'~ ~C:O ~~C\0~~,J. -\x,c..\ ~a)\\'Jt\ \o \{\~)._')~~ \."9.., ()Q,~O~'( iC\, ')..OIG \J1·A ~ P~ 1 ~(l\~ ,~)'Do·~ \.)..)~ \~0\~ ~ ·\\.su ~" ,0~--- ~'~'j ~ C:,0-)\~\ ~Q <:!~w~ \>:>~\ ~ ~~ \\Q~<, 0-) ~~~ w~· o.... \'b<:;.J€.... w~ w\Q\t,~ ~"--' \)c,~ \.c \l~ \..ll'\-- ~'\C\\'.) w~ \ ~\~\~L\_ ~·:::i -~\\\'~ \~ ~R)\'~::.(\ w\.o ~~v\7¥ ~ \(\ ~ c_\~ \\\I<.:~~\'"::> 'Nl \~Q\~\Q'\\ \}.~\I) \.N\~ ~tc\~j__ .\\.v_ ~,~\ ~·,o~ \):N1...\\:,_ ()'\ \\... CJ.~\J~ w\o ~'w~ \x, \-N \>.::.\ 1 ~ ww\~ ~ ?'(~~(:~IJ'.Q.,' Q.~,0,_ ~~~~-~~''(\':; \~ \~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ \'.>.:>\\<.'l'~xcl ~()(\~\,\'AA-; w~ \J,,,,~\:,_, c. .>M.\.. \~c:.... ~ ~ \ \- \~-\v.J. -S:.. ~""?~~'::>~~\!ll \o \x,t~ t\AY\\"'::,i!,\ ~~~'<\~~ ~ ~(\& C':~.$'{\A..~'X\ -\~ \o-'O.C\· \'S ~ ,.~-\ ~\?,\ ~ \'<\)\.)1\\j '""'S<~i~o11on . o'-~-Q,,'( ~Q..110.~ 'J.J~~ tl< ~'~ \() Ll:xm\) . w~ \)o,~~ ~~~ ~\\·~ ~~'-~\,'5<\ ~ \~ \,~ \ ~\\\~ ~-::> 'l~'-\ \.0i!.\\ ~'::f~& -\-~J; i-\ w~ -.\-~\t:. \J\'!)~ CM.._<:.\-\-~ C\~~~~\c:im o..~ \~~ \N_\,1'\~c.\\\ ~1..'Vi(. Do\~\~ t~~,~CQ, -\IJ \c0o"~ -\~ \.~\J.\~1C\v ~\~ tvJ~ 0-,~\ ~~~"'<-- c~ ~~\o.c\ ~ ~· ·~~ ~\ -\~ -\ '~ ~* \'<\ ~'O 'f'(\C)\NL,J.: \\_x-~\..· \Q\\\C>-\_\~ 26 Trial Court Attachment ""\\,,,, ~<)._ \"'"'- .,-1Jo\~lcl. mdt'"-'" \,..,~") \\,,.,-\ \~ ~"'"' ~\,_ ~'"'"' \'\\>.. \_µ\,c.;\ \~\ \o ~~ ~\~'j \ \).X\cl-. ~ -1<.'IJ>..~ \'1;:\~. ~\c;.u.. c.}.\~ r~\\~ ()_~ \~~ ~\~ \\\-\~ I(~,~~ C!J..><\0. ~'1-~\c:ii"'~ ~\iv.'\()..,\_'\\)~ ~\c.\xA \.0~ \Jo'\~~o... \o ~~"l.Q.ol \C} ~~ ok~ ~ \)~\~~ ~ ~~l"-S -\~~'~ v;}''U\~\.'\~"~ ~~ \)~\,~\\ c.~~~'") \c '\~ \~ ~"c\·~ 'me\..., \).;.~ \CD,~~ \~ \l.:~~ ~~(./ \s.x-~~ ~\"~, ~·~ c& \:-o~"'~~~c\ ~~ ('.)\ ,~,N~\ \>.1._~ l~'j ~ ~c\:t~ ~~~. ~~ ~~ ~~(.; \\.., ~ct\-cr~ -\<.:l ~ '\~-Q«) ~ \w< \~ ~\~ ~·:)~ ~~ ~''<~c.\..') w"\Q,\. ~~S '"~~-~~'j ~~ ..~ \<.::>~\ \.!.L( ~"'c-1(:~(:.,'~\\ ~ \)o~-V:'°- \<;\~ \.~~ ~~·~ "\~~).:)~:;&. ~\·~ w-::.0\d..._ ~ti.\U.. \~~ \:Jc·\~o.., ~ "o~~~ ~c\c\. ~\()·~o... 'f\'* \c ~J.:\01-\., . -\~,~ \o M.\o~ ~~c..'c0_'\ ~('.::> ~ O..:Z.1:.\•::,,d\ ~ (J..~ ~ \,:L\~\lv \)0·1~~a... \.c \J.l.. \.\) Ck.JJ~ \-<-\IS-l%\. \\\,'.'.> w-~~0-.. \.~~ ~c\. \v \JoR.\\o-- ~'~ ~\~u~\ 1'.l{\ o._ \'S-..~\.., C>.X\°' ~~'(\ l~ \.q_~\ O~ \~~~~ .\--~ \'{\\i(~ ~o< °:::c'<'t.~.:,1.;1~ ~ e.~~· \"'\.~ '6
·1~ \'(',~\ ~\~ ~I..)~ ~~"::>~)A.~d... 'f\o "~\~\:!; \j.)w ~~~-·~ ~'(~~00.1~ e~ wL ~~ \:J-..."'\.:)~ \w~N~ci\ \'..'~\ ~ -\.~ y'{o'·)~~\~ ~ ~°"~~ ~ ~\,,)·\\..\ ~e.. o\ "~ ~~ct ~~ -\~ C<\\'\ ~-::£)(\ \.).)~ \~ ~'~ ~o \.U ~\. ~ \~~~~~ ,-n -\-~ 0-~w~ -~ .+no~ 0~ ~ 0~·c\-'\ ~0-0'..) \Jc,l?..\\O:&:l ().~~~~~~ ~\ ~\.~..,-~ m·:;~~~,~" \.kl~~ ~~~\,\~'n·nj. ~~''UJ A-~\c.._\ t_,;..."\)~\ ~~ ~0--\\s.\ \~ \)~~I\\'\ ~'X9\(l...),i\, \~\'.... X'l'W:~\~~ "'<-'-\~~ W\-\~ \,\'K.\'~ _>.:)""'~ \u:_"- -\-<:) \.)'\\l:..Q~.Jt~~~ ~0-,'t\\,'J;..'j~ \~,~\\ \'\C~\c:1~\.'-\Q°N.) l~~ \::J~~~\~-S\~~. 27 Trial Court Attachment \'\,,~ \...,_,b ""--\c .1,1.._ i~I'\ 0~~,J,oRJ :\\..._.._, \»""-< \}\.\..~'°"' .~ U,<:>,\,'n~1 ~ ()...)('\<-'..\. ~\:>~ ~~~'0t'c~ \'{\\JC:\\)m~~~ ~O\\~ \J\}H...\\I).. '>-'<'0-._ -s(>~\~~ ~\:,}~ • CJt\ \\)-(?- \<.\ -So~'~ ~~ '01;)'\.&o....- ' . ~ \);\\'-\ ffi\">'>'""J ~J., \>..)(>;) \\.., TI\<:i\~ \!\ ~ \)~\'"') \",~· "'" ""'"') . .\~~-w ~'\O~ \,)~~\._~ -yw_~,"~ \k~~ ~ \.~ ~~\\~\\) \ W~'~ \ \t\.~ ('.}. t1W'"~'1\ .'.\\.ii., \c \x-,'<'<~ ~ \~_o.;< '~ \\...... \..v~~ ~. -\\v ~~ ~·~~~~~tl \~\'\,~\ \:_'-"fv~ \'\\ox*~ 'L~\C\.~1·::i ~~·~ ~.,..o~~-~~"<'\\ \~ 6-''U.- ¥ \~u \~ ~~oJ. ~~~ yro~ w).,\-..\°'""""' ~'\""" <'.M''-'-'" ,,,_~\. k, ~°"..,\'':'), <;."=._\\ \),,.,,~ ~"'--\,~""\ ~ ():'.> -\\..._ ..:, -s-~~~~,.-T~~~~~~ -\~ ~~, ~\o.IQ_,ffi \\·\~-\r.:;, ~<:..\ \~ v~~'n) ~'(o\k~ \\,.,\ \.~l \a D"' -"i_ ~'~~ ~ \~ '«-'\)~ ·'i!.,~Q..\"<\\·~ ~\we \&~~ \ -~"'\'\Q.., ~'00C~c:>~\O~. lv~~ \n~ ~QJtf;)~ -\\~. \0,\\ ~·,'{~ a\~y- \tl\S(Jc-::i ~ \a .\-<,tj tA..X)mJ \ ~\\ ~~ Th'\~\~~\'00;"°'~ ~\\1.2.X\. ~ \,,o_.\ ~.Q)ff~.\ \ ~~ ~\:X\c\\~ \'1{ -\~ ~~ \\) ~ ~"'!- 0..A m.2-~cl'-. \),X\c\. -\oh rn~t ®'\\":l\~~101l -\~ c,~..2\VAo~ -:[ ·(~C\m.~~cJ oxd ~ \X"\ \A.)\,~\ \'(,~ ~~~\ \-Wclv do hereby verify that the facts set forth in the above motion are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge or information and belief, and that any false statements herein are made sub- ject to the penalties of Section 4904 of the Crimes Code (18 Pa. C.S. § 4904), relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. No Notary Required 30 9 Trial Court Attachment ORIGINAL COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE CRIMINAL COURTS OF THE COUNTY OF vs Criminal Action No. _ _ _ _ of ______ 2 _ _ ORDER AND NOW this _ _ _ _ _ _ _ day of _ _ , 2 ____ Upon consideration of the foregoing motion: 1. D The motion is returned to defendant for amendment as follows, such amendment to be made on or before ______________ ,2 _ _ _ __ 2. D A rule is granted upon the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to show cause why a hearing should not be granted. The rule is returnable on or before 3. D The request to proceed as a poor person, without the payment to costs, is D granted D denied. 4. D Upon finding that defendant is unable to obtain a l a w y e r - - - - - - - - - - - - - Esq., is appointed to represent him/her. 5. D The Clerk of Court is ordered and directed to do the following forthwith: (a) To serve a copy of this motion and this order upon the District Attorney of _ _ _ _ _ _ County. (b) To send a copy of this motion and this order to _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Esq., the lawyer for the defendant. (c) To send a copy of this order to the defendant. 6. D 31 Trial Court Attachment ORIGINAL 10 ~ OJ<~ \·\.)..)c \~\I.tC \c c..c~wm., ~ ~r.."-X\,~~ -€~~<:>'(\, \(:) \'(\\c\ti"v \Y\c.~ '0.J1..:;'\\~e._\ ~ ""-\ ~":)'~~ ~ ~ ~ °".)_~ c~ ~\a., ~·t. } \~ -{.'-\ ,~N.; , Q>.x\.d -\o \SO\~ eJ...~ ~ ~ t.P'M:.i•X~ ~V< ~ z.~,~ ~ \~. \,~,~\·~ y\~ e\~ \.~ \),\\\~ ~d-;,~'\\, CV0c\. ~ ~~~~- ~ ~S ~\~ ~ \~ ~'~~\~ ~ \~ \)\~,~~ ~ \o.u, c)-,Q)_ ~~ \-\~ ~''*\ \.>-~~~~ ·'\-0-~\_ \c \~\~\ ~l:i\\~~1Cl{"';) \>::!~~\~'\\\~~~ a-\~ _\\_ri_\~ ~ 'n~c.l Wt,\\~ ·~ d~ C\J~S..ll-~~ \~ \~ \~'(1:0\'\ ., ~~ -t.~l\ \~\.Q.x ~ Q..c-\\._q_0-_ \x ,~ C:..0v~ ~ ta~''("'- ~\s..< CY ·~ ~ '<~C:.-H:~-:.\. \~tou \~l6 od '\~ ·~\ .9'n~ . ~~ ~ ~~\Q\ "~~\ \~~ ~*' ~ U:~ ~~- 32 Trial Court Attachment 1 i: ·J,;;<·i:-::-:g '/~ u ~-::; Llp:i::te vc~t or; Lt;e fast letter I s~nt vou and our conversation over the phone ...., ! <1; ·:e!·e v:·~· 2'sked :.-,e abcur the locc:·~io;;s of the people in my letter)! am also writing you because I am 1 :c:n:e:r:''' ·~ ~tE.': ~·:'.\' :cse :~12y be ;ooked at : l'a:-.~ :c· ::..2'gi;, :'.'.;' c.r,swe:ing the question of the where about of Josiah and Veronica ~ 1..;i:·.;-; 1 ef·s·:- J(;Si2.~ s :u·:·e••'-'i' !n DHS cus:od·y(which was mentioned at the preliminary hearing). I he last :;:-::e ~:"::a;,.::,--,~.- ~r;.:i:hi'::· [~lked c,bcut :the was in foster care up until .C.pril of 2016 the last time we ·.:'i!k~c.' s:·.2. re:: :r,2 th:t he was sent out Pi:tsburg to a Boy$ .home because of his behavior and that she sal.:: ::.r-.e '12d !'r:-i't.::ri to no cont::cl: with hfm (in a!I she sa'id he didn't wc:r:t to talk to her until he gets . ",i.<:·•:o:e:·; ~C·~i:~i•·=• _:.~~.i.: M·i: z;:.:::·c,c::il :n t\.:iiding a defense centers around the fact that Doretta was put up to the c-rig~n2' o.!:eg2tic.-: \!.:ei: 33 Trial Court Attachment ~he :..:;-,c.c' .:Jn :J.::t. 1, 2C1A t:i rr::;:iort. the abuse e;t the hand of my stepfather, later they were taken to a :'ot,"\:h ~he!rer w:ti: ·:-dn<:. -'en!dns was C'1ileci under the recommendation of CPS and the school they were .SL·;:pc~ 12 t!.1 t: ·: \;;.,_;::'.< ~o rf!•,· ri10-i:her but Trina took them back to rny stepfathers instead the two main :_:.~:·:ts' w;,r;r. ·:o rn;.:'.:.2 '-"'r-: ::r. it comes tc that is that first that as you should see in the discovery Trina :iidr•'t ~ai~: ·~c ·:1·:1 :;vJrr: ·:·1::· <: mv :.n«c.·;; i;;,t ::f :r.D·Ji~g parts\,-, case like I said in the previous letter Mr. Giuliani that again :.? ·~ :::~, ~'·-''':,·1 · :. :~er'. :)' ."<':; .::: .;:: is iook.sd z·;: ;~s typiczil of its kir.d. When it comes to DHS there are a lot of z ~L'' ·~;:- ' s·~:: ·.·a::,· ._,,<;-, ~h:1: i'lv.:sdgF;tfori, also when it comes to rny discovery I fee! there are things .··-::ssir~; .. '''· ::h :; ;; i::·,: 'nt;;rv;.">.w ~ha·~ sh0u!:: :-,ave been conducted of MS miller the school official Doretta .'.:::.:J :;' .:::'\'.:!she said in her original interview that I didn't do it and that Dcrr,;tte; 'N<13 :out l:p w :hs <::!l:-,:gatior,s by my stepfather. Being that Doretta turned and later said I did ::,;;2s;e ::?:l:··.0: i ~ ord>~r fo:· :-:2r -~(,still b::: eib!e to see Doretta after the fact means she would still have to had b'-:-::r 3'.i'.·;~·:~i <"!:.,:."::· ':J·,e or:glri :'V"; pr2tt:1 ~;u;-e ~ 1 ·.:i<1 "familiar wi~·h Brady Vs. Maryland and their rules on exculpatory evidence I ·'221 ':f°dnf.:.~·h::ive ro-P.r1 /(e:;:t siut from rn'.1 d!scoverv even by the prosecution or DHS (in which I believe :·;1-~~~ i::<:';-,i?. sta\".2 ran c:r:0 fr2de.r2::y fl.'::ded agency they would also fall under the Brady obligation), or t•·,;;;,·,: r:·:c.··, ~,,:?. ;;·,ar -~,' 2re ~in·.p:·.... "vasn,t 2· investigation done into these things I feel with the new head DA ' : '.< ;:\' !(.-;::s,,·::; -~:.-;:;•/ii 1:::2 -.~.:,r:: v1•1.!tr:g ':0 c::icperate in giving over ar.y excu!paton; eviden-ce they may :'1c1:.:• -'.~ ;yc·'.:•:;r· . :. n .?-1$n :nc!uciing in :::·!is c€~!e;· my personal notes that I've d1·afted I have the most :::; :-."\'ic! ,,,·,c.<' ::;· ;.;t :.r.i:: c;~r' ~: .;t up a !~trong arg .. nnent if the things I asked you for are looked into Mr.
Sincerely Roy Windom 3/?./2018 t~:~ 34 Trial Court Attachment 1/12/18 Vtn ·0 .:tlttng vou concerning the progress of my case and a few 1 i'~::~w::::. that I ~·:3v~ discovery. I'm aware that my trial is set to start June 5 2::=·,:~S! ~~)·~d th~1t ;·~ ~s fast approaching. There are a lot of moving parts ;~-, th 1s •:::;:is.::: thE1t can be easily overlooked if my case is looked at as ·1:/;)k:;il cf l'=s ~dnd (most!v l~~olated and based mainly on hearsay}. I'm r.·Ji/ firs·;: issues !ics vvith the 8'·25··14 meeting between Doretta and c:·,t ::r:i>:·2 :Sp?:k·:.; c::;i:: Ch·~>p hosp1ta! where the allegations were first ·.-'tf;,,.·:·>·,;··· ::/·! ·q.,n :;:...,•;.;:. ....... ! ........... i . • .. ':.:.·n··~ :-::: rf.;,;:.,r exo ,1 ..........~.~ ....... .. , 1lO ..,n:~._.. .. o \ on ~,s ""•J "ij"l..,t 1 Q le "thy v-t.1 nn..,V:.;:,··tep.. ·l=ather f! I •.".! ·c· 1,t:: r~."11,··'."'· ,., .;.,., ri~ 'r:C 1so; .. _i U1 .~-.r +he res' ult~ 1 and I di~ - 'co know •A1hat 1 1 ,'·J· · · , .... ;., · '- .. 1 .".t.;;.1::. 'v· ·::,.;,.;::; ; i>Cl '- o• .;;i , vv 1 C·,c1 ~1'.'i~J. 1 ddt: i: do and vvhat f'm being accused of! know! didn't do. And I:.:::'.·:~·=! hnc"/' './;;hat Doretta anp Torrva told me as far as my Step-father p•.'·tti,ng h2•· up to ·i·he 2!!12gations. So the visit and the result l foe! could .,I "'....... :'.. '\r• u ~ ·>- ,.,.,,' .:·,,,.,.,.,:--- ,·,c.•'"'f'''·.'1 1·' \Ni.-1·:::.n l ! ' ; ' •: . C! ~· :_. . ' •.:. ~ \·· -:.: v ' '-• I 'y . l I:: H you t'ai"e I'. into • conridi0rat1·flr I::. \ .... .) II t·l-·at II thercl .:... ".: ,,, 1-. ,.. ~<-c.-F::··,:':·.::-, :.I'··" _,,i.::; •••.. ,>0•..-· 1« ..Y1P -~···'-~ Ifni:; ·~,·-· ;:1•:.. ,, ·~.i h-· "•·' vv !"'·1ot: ......... ~,..I ·•L1e Li DH·S l \"ork·::." 'iJV cee1"'t Do1·et+a l\CI ...> \. (before.. er yftei f(i•::: "·i~:lt}._ .ar';d anv i':"li?dlca! records between 8-·25-14 and 9-15- :\.4 '•·;'f.iEn yc:u ·;~hink ti13t peretration was denied later! feel as though ..... L·;·~rv>1->·~.,, !:1.1;: ...;· ·.,_.r,.1 .• ,, •. 1.~ ,...,., "'--· ....• !., d.~ ;r- .:·<-.. ·'.-~·.:,. l.J . p~. k ••'>'.::"""c '"' ci e·'r·r:::.o' 1 o -· up f'or· the 1·1.,I'erest , O''f m\"y " •" ·t· .-,:-,,··-,,i~:i::.:t0·"l ~t·"'·'·,.,"''~tc- ' ··• ~·,.• ._,. . .,.,, ...... ~ l,. .., 1.. •.., t..... ~ 1 1 ~J Lv.' ~-.,_, ..... <...i.- bc;::.-l· le!\. H"ern.., t -....1l t ii b·~ck C~ , Trron1 n"1y s·tep-father after the I I \.. r:1i~\.:~:, acc~-~:cr;~'.cn ~in which I explained that there was no one rn:~:n~:1::ined 2.:s th·2 perpetrator). In which school officials contacted '[;·c·I2t" i:.::P::~ 1\:v>w generated the original report with Josiah) and they i\ ·\'::>\(?' c~~rt e ::.J;0 ·;:c.c.:k the kkls to a youth :5helter for the night until Trina 1 ;,,{"\ 1 ~.· ......,,:,:,... - ···-·1111-: -nn-··~ -:..,,.J .._..,,t,c. '"hern hacl ')~ .v~ 1" • •J d~s-cci/E:t\. 1 ·:sr:;': correct and ! was there for the end of the event where 0 u /( (' &. c ·s ;::;r:J; E<.;'ii.Jcd offic;c.d said they wt::re filing forn"tal complaints against 0 \,JI;\ '\ :'/n~.~ b:;:c::;.:u:se Josl2h and f.)oretta 1Neren't suppose to be there in the ,,)\ 1Q, .....· (\\).' ,\J'I' .,:1 ~-., ·, ~J·.(';(,,., '"~'· ,_ i··· ,..,.,,... ·~J\.!di ·1=·r.'.· >it\f ~·+c.:i•-..c-,-;-~")ers 'f"' '(',...,, · ;:ll..-~!c;t..), na~'- =-t~on.' ,;,il r'1f::, , y• of Cl..J ""~ u w>~ c ..... ·~ !'1U ...i crim1·na I _0,y ,lv (,;< I I 1<\l•v ,/ ;·~~->:n·d. T::,~::· r 02ason I'm saying this is because they ran away four days .11~t\ , ·,1"'·."MJ,"",/ r,2·:.:;,:;;; ~;",.j in ::21?1-dn~· with CPS c.ind school officials is it oossible to see if ~/Ii.I>"\ 0 I .· .): . ,,.,.;-1··· .,.,..,.,:,·r--: ir rie··J a '1-rt•· '"'lg - hout ... h'° al'egat'ons being she denied it r~~~.~) t·"Ni°i"0~:~·~~::")~:;:;:!r~r; h~rn~. ~ iii' ', ci:.- t_ ·- i • l I : ill' . :;<,v.. ,.;::::: -==- ======= ~ . :: >r 1 ··> ., j'" \/\fhich (irings rn2 to my most important concern the ability to 3t~.::~\r: \lvi·~:nesses~,: i lrnovv we taik2d about Marquetta as a witness but :::.h·,:? i:. t·/ c·the rneist relicibi~ person and with her past history and criminal i":::cnrd [·he :. nlght erH:.l up bdng irnpeached. Josiah Qn the other hand is ,__, i,;..-..:•·t;·.~.,:~:~,~r.·:.·Y.1·>.o :::, '"""' "1i ;:,'f":u· D12;3'N8i·«::: he 1Nas the reason for them coming back to Philadelphia dK: w:,~v they tfod and 2!so he was there at the Chop visit because he h .:.1d toh;; rtie in a convt:rsation v11e had about their doctors visit that they ::;;r;~y ::.:a(ne t,<) rme doctor)s 3ppointment and it was my stepfather who t.;:-ougrrt ther~·;. l feei with the controversy surrounding Doretta's '.~'2.:ldn1oiY:f in the besir:ning and the thing she's saying now that Josiah cer•: be a c-:nviablis asset to ff'iV defense, and it's imperative that we tnov.2 c;uk:kfy to at least ~tzternpt to attain a statement from him {even if if:-: srHr1e·~j·;ir\~~ like thi:: PCt-:, process) before he is released to my mother 36 Trial Court Attachment Cus·~:odv. bec·~1J.se st1e has lust as much to lose as I do as you will see in ~ the t1~xt message feeds that I've had sent to you. 1VlV next pressing issue is the DHS records; I only have one piece of 1"'·).Ji:::. ~ ,._,·~r--.~r ;,,.,a Y-o ·rhe c~sr- \l./hicn' i's or~ly used to ·inform Law ,,.,-.,r ..-.·- .l~:-,.,- t~:·ifo;·;:ement of the accusi1tions. I feel vvith DHS being the original ::,E;p-::rt!n2: agency! should have their original reports. And also with Oor.:-:tt2 :;ay)r;g so much the DHS records should contradict her '.~(~~·tlrnci~~! '.; :~_,;mw . _,,. \Nith josiah about t~12 composition . of the household e:?>::ci::-Y'/ _,..,·n:h the .(Hscovent stating that my familv has a long history 1;-.:1'd·i :·:.;l-·\5;, i\~~;;:.; ; i:.Jve ~: issue vv1th DHS bec2us.e n1other made me mv -:""·~~,-·:i '-' :r.:· L~-~~=_ .,!;:;., '·· :£ ........~-·•l_.c .:.tc.t.G .• ,....... 1 . . ~..... ~ ..;.-~~::.d~1 .. ~,>I -~~r:'"'e\·c tli , '- vJ .:) a DHc- ;) ~.A ·Jv 0"l i.:'n i'n"if ·:-.:.!c\:: bncd< v.tho at the tfme was the kids current worker (which '·"l"'t." ,)' ~·• l ·,.'.,till ~ ~ ·:;.~.;,,n •• r, .... ~1:·,;:-.·:-11 • ~... &••, • , ,:,.,..i1'l1 • L ' - .. l . ~ 'l·h.p ,.. o - .,,~X""1..' I.. V ,. r~eeds ~ 1''m c:pn· dk 0a _. _ 'f 1 1 you) • ;':/:;s Orr pvst2d ne:\MS articles that DHS was under investigation for f:·;/i::< "' .r:,· ,...!,~,.:·~ t. rn c. r:;·.~· i'• n,f- ~.JJ·J· ir1P ....... •;_-:. - ~ ~; _ .. t ...... ... - tS 1....... c· hcif ~ . . . . . ·~. . . . \~--· ~ u f:::i 's1'fyt'ng ~ \1<5it5 atvl , ~ I i.. reports ... - ~ ~ ~ v i , .... • 1.o...1r es;.,'-t::~i~~1;\/ hoine \flsits. And the fact the mother was the original mv i.'.c.,,i~,_·ir~' ....,> .• ..... Li. t ,~.;-:~·h.r:i. '-r ... -:.1\;:.-,o~":c1r1c - .... , ..... Ct • t l '" I , .._. e;, •. . , L' .. , ., "'> 1~ ~ 'Ii b1'rh • ; ..., I t'o!d , vou y rn··)I 5t::.pfa·t· t:: n'· er on 1Iy told her i;.. ..,., ·.··- :·~)~.~~ ..H·-· .;.'.',:J:L!~'.-...'-;~~'..\ ,, ~c ,..., ...1 ~ --<.·.;.~ ..:1 •~1ri· ~iot~11 •. :.iv·•'·~•vdl\.i!C-·~.-::'u:.JVJ;.I "'rlen""'or 1 L; !ing i.ll'. perpetrator , Also t , "t··e ?·~·.'·· ~~;u··;· " ' , , \:. • ....1 \ J . , th:..ct ~. ~ ~~.• --)':c, ~. ~ \... 1 t:....«: «.i :i ·~ ·r.r-Jkl ~. "- ~ i..·l h·; - y ·;\1,~ ._} tuorkeV' .... •...., u'H<:: V'J I the •' a~ !IAgat·1ons '\.- uvere V' false '·".'.::.( /"Ytj·~.~ ·:.t-·. · .................. 1""'..: .,.,,,._,v •... ,.._,.,,, • •-~·.!. ~....J':H'"•~ .•0:·:'. 1 C.~ . . . nf h.-::> v. rfi..-rov·::.'"Y \.-I ~ii"'0 a'!SO +he l. r e" 1Pn On 9-15-14 ,-.··«,f 111 1 l..i;i~- U\~ 4 \I"-' '··Ii!',',... -.:'' -- "····r; '-·' ;-,,"<....-: ... _, •:-.. . ,.>·1··" l:.-'·~~ L.' 1• ,, .......... .t'.1~ :.. -·h ··vcf· f ,...,. . . ;~ d- ,:~ ::- :l; l 'J " 0 n·-·1c 'nter\11'e•M ,..c'nedulc.d ~ 1·n wh1'ch 1 •,_, .;:, , \i "" ;;;, 1 fr[n:::i .:.:::ai;Y1s ~:.h,2 :~(;! rn~~d:e the accusations but didn t clarify why 1 C: 1~::t:2ri:::1 didr(t s'.--.ovl.' dO to hf~r lrrterview or why she wasn't rescheduled i:t,.r ·:, 1 ·•nr:_:-,.::;~· • •.r I ~ ~- - ' l l~:·v~ f ... ,. ~' J l..,_, ;;:k ..... r·:·.. ;-. -,:::~ L'"11· rhe ~·"('<.\/ ~r~l'"' -.··-; ...... , F•·,,· .., .f. .•.. , . . • l~ . . . . ~.::.·..., , c',.., ..... ile·,..., ... :or1·- were orig1'nally made and rr1y 1 l ; ~ :. ~ .;J , t,; ~ ·z} i ('°; .:!J ·~~.~•::ii ~,: ~: :;! ~ ·~. {:. , t: C: ..:;·1 i , 5 Cl t ~ 1 .. .:> ~ i ...• ,J ....··r"" t.-·,~~1"1 ?l.,_,t .. ~ ~ ! , ;..., ~.A :·,~·, ".\.,. l..· \. 'v ·;.-,.i·--.ir·l- : ~ l~ ~ ....· ,_, ,.,.~·c.. •... 1 , ~- ::·1H'-'.' ·:\·r1°r·11·.::;')r o....· ' ~ .,,,. ....;. \o.-J "- ~- \; ...;it.,J I W\"O II r, • b·Pl';ev•::i - t '-" ·1c.,~· rhesti1'ne -· ! f Sp:~L::.s ~>n.:'.·ig -;·~ T",.·1;·1a ;JVas ~iH: ::H1·~ \Nho reported back to my mom ..' 37 Trial Court Attachment Tr12se are th::?. n1aln issues that I have especially a priority to the ;:~cqui1·~ng Jo~>ia~·; as a vv~tn.sss. i\/e mentioned various times throughout "' J , ! ... ) :\.:i·~..,.. 01· ·rh~:~·l. i·»-.,, ::::.~nrlir . r,:r ';"~1 \.·;,1;, t _.. t,. \.Cr l 1 ._; •r text (Y'essages I c ·-·· 1 ~ fel:lds c:; t what I'm ~ • -..> \ .. _. • II U t. ~CJ -~ 1 • t f • s:tt.2n-ir.it~nf:T ' <.... tc· flnd ln thes:e messages are the reason for the second ~ ::;ccu::;~tlon 1 2nd ~;)so supporting messages to show that l didn't know of •"!;c, c:·Cit'.('i•"t,-1, !..-1 . ,..... ._.1...... 'lo,. .. ~.· ••'.:.'J, "'r>d ·rha·rt.. ·t'n1e only pe1·con 1..A -.;~,-• <·;'.,"','rJ·)n. .... i::\._..~-l·j·..rC _.~.,..: _, s could have w1""'0 i..1, 1 :~ .. f . ,.,_,,,.,.,".•;.:·,I ~ .. ; J ( 'C <' '. ••• t '/\.;'::<<: ~v-1.y· f">''C I ! ! 1 "'~0fl~j-v- '~ t \; c: 11.1!-lQ I- 7 \I• ! ·t-lked ~~...,; d tO bet"ore ancl aTrter th1e J j ~ i ..J -.. • lJ\ ,f :.;c·::·'.,;s:;:\V.0ns \Nere rr;acie. You'!! be receiving them from three different scurc~=:~~ a ·~c.:t'.t app and mv rriom's phone numbers new and old which s~·wuid go b~~ck to 2014 or 2015 I'm doing my best on my end to give YDLl ,~;'.:2 be:si. ch0n;:;e of advocating for me before the court. Also I'm 1''t1ork!ng c~n ·:.1not!'\er vvY:ness Veronica surnmers who was there in that '.l1t''(l:'"-"'..·=~ 0 • )·-,::d;-)r,.o· _ ..... ~, . • . ~: ... : 1;-!'·-::.. 1:·•)· J,....t-o g·e"·t t-ho '!''.""'·\/ . .~r,nr'\r~ . t .... 1...1cic k:ds "s back . f\.1-o !'rn 0a1'v1'ng you my ·~·u ,~ ~ ~ 1 Cate bo·:::>':: .i3:;~iYY1n.i;:~2ED.(~}L;,:n1a_il.con1 password:· capital S t:rl:;c 1t'VL::::-: ·J g£ t th1~ r·:1essages ! know it will take some time (because 0 <: fs d !c'f.f ~!ut t;;·;in \tou send rr;e copies so I can rnake sure it's accurate .• , ...... , ...... ,,.., .... , ... ·... i'"', : .. , .,,. .. ,.... ...i i ..-.. ~ ~ \... x:: ·:. ' c:: ~ : t ._:: ,j~ ! 5 c~ ~ ~ t.• : -i ;~ • In·· rU ·".J~1.. ~ .;: ~ - ~) •"(,,.: ~ ~f,.f!,... ¥ v! ~ at '·rv L- '100!.1" .t:"""' 1U w , Sincerely Roy \Nindom /, / ·F / I / {I{!/ .. I ·>!. ./', /1f/,;1· ,/ .-'/''/i_ , . ( . '"' J ....... /._~ c) 38 Trial Court Attachment 50 \.\ \0 ~ d Oii\_, -'-~ei_,\«., ' Q\\C\L\?)2_ 'D'~ ~- \-\..:n-\-,r\<)(:..\..c(\_, \ \()0 y \¥,'(_, ST" GOllJO~ 6PJOoeij /11U/UJµ0/~ \\\)('i\,?1~ ~\\., Q'A IZOZ ri A'1Yi \1_,1.9~·'-\-\\\'l... 031\1303l:I ~~~ ~1~ la~"' , '.2. \ b\ .J 0\ C~ \ \~ ~ i,::~~~r, r ' 'Oti \ :~fi;i'\ L.r · :: ,,: 1r ;'.·. F ,: i ,;• :Offl Received f;t4r , - 1 2021 'Pn 1 CL, QA \ (\ IQ~tfl'~ '""'~'1ecarts '. . ~ .. ,, ' .. .~ \:-: ..• ·~i 39 Trial Court AttachmentI have$~~'1~·- - - - - - - - - - - in my prison account.
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Com. v. Windom, R., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/com-v-windom-r-pasuperct-2022.