PCRA evidentiary hearing in Pennsylvania

2025Commonwealth v. Maddrey, 205 A.3d 323, 327 (Pa. Super. 2019). [T]he right to an evidentiary hearing on a post-conviction petition is not absolute.

2024Commonwealth v. Maddrey, 205 A.3d 323, 327 (Pa. Super. 2019). - 10 - J-S21016-24 It is well settled that [t]he right to an evidentiary hearing on a post-conviction petition is not absolute.

2024Commonwealth v. Jones, 596 A.2d 885, 888-89 (Pa. Super. 1991).

2018See Commonwealth v. Jones, 596 A.2d 885 (Pa. Super. 1991) (explaining that a PCRA petitioner must produce trial counsel at a PCRA evidentiary hearing to meet his burden of proof).

2025Commonwealth v. D’Amato, 856 A.2d 806, 825 (Pa. 2004) (citations and quotation marks omitted). ____________________________________________ 6 Although not at issue in the instant case, we reiterate that “the newly- discovered facts exception to the time limitations of the PCRA, as set forth in [Section] 9545(b)(1)(ii), is distinct from the after-discovered evidence basis for relief delineated in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2).” Commonwealth v. Burton, 158 A.3d 618, 629 (Pa. 2017). -5- J-S31040-25 Here, the PCRA court addressed Appellant’s claim as follows: For a multitude of reasons, this court simpl

2008See Commonwealth v. D'Amato, 579 Pa. 490 , 856 A.2d 806 (2004). ¶ 43 During the PCRA evidentiary hearing, Mr. Robertson, a/k/a “Smack,” who was in prison, testified that, on March 11, 2004, he went to the night club with Kevin Harris and met the victim.

2024See Commonwealth v. Fisher, 813 A.2d 761, 771 (Pa. 2002) (ineffectiveness claim rejected where petitioner “did not present anything at the PCRA evidentiary hearing which would have produced a different result [on the underlying issue]….

2024See Commonwealth v. Fisher, 813 A.2d 761, 771 (Pa. 2002) (ineffectiveness claim rejected where petitioner “did not present anything at the PCRA evidentiary hearing which would have produced a different result [on the underlying issue]….

2020See Commonwealth v. Keaton, 615 Pa. 675 , 45 A.3d 1050, 1093 (2012) (holding that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present evidence of neurological impairment and psychological disorders because such evidence would have supported the (e)(2), (e)(3) and (e)(8) mitigators, and there is a reasonable probability that at least one juror may have struck a different balance had such evidence been presented); Commonwealth v. Martin, 607 Pa. 165 , 5 A.3d 177 , 203–04 (2010) (holding that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present during the penalty phase available

2020See Commonwealth v. Keaton, 615 Pa. 675 , 45 A.3d 1050, 1093 (2012) (holding that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present evidence of neurological impairment and psychological disorders because such evidence would have supported the (e)(2), (e)(3) and (e)(8) mitigators, and there is a reasonable probability that at least one juror may have struck a different balance had such evidence been presented); Commonwealth v. Martin, 607 Pa. 165 , 5 A.3d 177 , 203–04 (2010) (holding that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present during the penalty phase available

2020See Commonwealth v. Keaton, 615 Pa. 675 , 45 A.3d 1050, 1093 (2012) (holding that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present evidence of neurological impairment and psychological disorders because such evidence would have supported the (e)(2), (e)(3) and (e)(8) mitigators, and there is a reasonable probability that at least one juror may have struck a different balance had such evidence been presented); Commonwealth v. Martin, 607 Pa. 165 , 5 A.3d 177 , 203–04 (2010) (holding that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present during the penalty phase available

2020See Commonwealth v. Keaton, 615 Pa. 675 , 45 A.3d 1050, 1093 (2012) (holding that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present evidence of neurological impairment and psychological disorders because such evidence would have supported the (e)(2), (e)(3) and (e)(8) mitigators, and there is a reasonable probability that at least one juror may have struck a different balance had such evidence been presented); Commonwealth v. Martin, 607 Pa. 165 , 5 A.3d 177 , 203–04 (2010) (holding that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present during the penalty phase available

2025Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 694 ____________________________________________ 11 As the PCRA court observed, trial counsel testified at the PCRA evidentiary hearing that he did not object to [Nurse Friedman’s] testimony, even given the … holding in Maconeghy, because the defense was that there was no sexual contact with R.K., and the fact that there was no sexual trauma present [in the physical exam] helped the defense. [N.T., 8/7/24,] at 26-34. [Trial counsel] testified that he did not believe that [Nurse] Friedman’s determination of sexual assault based on history bolstered the v

2009See, e.g., Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) ("A fair assessment of attorney performance requires ... [the court to] evaluate the conduct from counsel's perspective at the time."); Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 386-387 , 106 S.Ct. 2574 , 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986) (hindsight cannot be used to supply a reasonable reason for the decisions of counsel); Commonwealth v. Marshall, 534 Pa. 488, 505-06 , 633 A.2d 1100, 1108 (1993) ("We find that counsel's answers [at the PCRA evidentiary hearing] demonstrate that he did not have a reasonable basis t

2023Commonwealth v. Bracey, 795 A.2d 935, 942-943 (Pa. 2001) (stating, “[trial] counsel was not required to disregard the findings of his expert and continue to consult experts, at the expense of limited judicial resources, until he found one willing to testify that [Bracey] was organically brain damaged or manifested some kind of major mental illness”); see also Commonwealth v. Sepulveda, 55 A.3d 1108, 1122 (Pa. 2012) (stating that, - 26 - J-S31011-23 a court, in assessing trial counsel’s performance in the context of a ineffectiveness claim, must be careful to assess that performance “without th

2015Bracey II, at 278, 795 A.2d at 942 .

2026The certification under this subparagraph shall include any documents material to the witness’s testimony and specify the basis of the petitioner’s information regarding the witness and the petitioner’s efforts to obtain the witness’s signature. …. (iii) Failure to substantially comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall render the proposed witness’s testimony inadmissible. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(d)(1); see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 902(A)(15). - 22 - J-A02028-26 PCRA court can determine from the record that no genuine issues of material fact exist, then a hearing is not necessary.” citation om

2025See Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18 A.3d 244 (Pa. 2011) (holding that, following a PCRA evidentiary hearing, credibility determinations are within the province of the PCRA court, and when such credibility determinations are supported by the record, they are binding on the appellate courts).

2025See Spotz, supra. Specifically, during the PCRA evidentiary hearing, guilty plea counsel indicated Appellant’s cases at docket numbers 1062-2020 and 270-2021 were assigned to Judge Convington; however, Appellant had two VOP cases, which were assigned to Judge Campbell.

2025See Commonwealth v. Karanicolas, 836 A.2d 940 (Pa.Super. 2003). - 20 - J-S27041-25 However, as indicated supra, to the extent Appellant asserts the PCRA court denied his PCRA petition at docket number 270-2021 without holding an evidentiary hearing, he is factually mistaken.

2025See Commonwealth v. Karanicolas, 836 A.2d 940 (Pa.Super. 2003). - 20 - J-S27041-25 However, as indicated supra, to the extent Appellant asserts the PCRA court denied his PCRA petition at docket number 270-2021 without holding an evidentiary hearing, he is factually mistaken.

2025See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Thoeun Tha, 64 A.3d 704, 713 (Pa. Super. 2013) (stating that failure to present or develop an argument in support of a claim on appeal causes it to be waived). -5- J-S47005-24 Commonwealth v. Sandusky, 203 A.3d 1033, 1043 (Pa. Super. 2019) (internal citations and quotations omitted).

2025See Stansbury, 219 A.3d at 161 .

2025See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Thoeun Tha, 64 A.3d 704, 713 (Pa. Super. 2013) (stating that failure to present or develop an argument in support of a claim on appeal causes it to be waived). -5- J-S47005-24 Commonwealth v. Sandusky, 203 A.3d 1033, 1043 (Pa. Super. 2019) (internal citations and quotations omitted).

2025Moreover, our Supreme Court has stated that a PCRA evidentiary hearing “is not meant to function as a fishing expedition for any possible evidence that may support some speculative claim of ineffectiveness.” Commonwealth v. Roney, 79 A.3d 595, 605 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted and formatting altered).

2025Commonwealth v. D’Amato, 856 A.2d 806, 825 (Pa. 2004) (citations and quotation marks omitted). ____________________________________________ 6 Although not at issue in the instant case, we reiterate that “the newly- discovered facts exception to the time limitations of the PCRA, as set forth in [Section] 9545(b)(1)(ii), is distinct from the after-discovered evidence basis for relief delineated in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2).” Commonwealth v. Burton, 158 A.3d 618, 629 (Pa. 2017). -5- J-S31040-25 Here, the PCRA court addressed Appellant’s claim as follows: For a multitude of reasons, this court simpl

2025The PCRA court observed that [i]n evaluating counsel’s trial decision-making, first, “trial counsel will not be considered ineffective for failing to pursue meritless claims.” Commonwealth v. Freeland, 106 A.3d 768, 778 (Pa. Super. 2014). [Appellant’s] underlying claim as to [the] admission of [Mr.] Gilmore’s statement lacks merit in that the statement constituted inadmissible hearsay. [Mr.] Gilmore testified [at] the PCRA evidentiary hearing that he knew of the potential shooter from “just general conversation around people.” N.T., 1/24/24, at 10.

2024Walker’s affidavit, and subsequent testimony at the PCRA evidentiary hearing, do not constitute newly-discovered facts, for purpose of the newly-discovered facts exception pursuant to Section 9545(b)(1)(ii) but, rather, are newly-discovered or newly-willing sources that confirm or support a previously known fact, namely, as Appellant has consistently maintained, that he was not present in Mount Union on the - 26 - J-S03012-24 evening of the incident.16 See Commonwealth v. Marshall, 947 A.2d 714 , 720 (Pa. 2008) (stating, “the focus of the exception is on the newly[-]discovered facts, not a new

2024Walker’s affidavit, and subsequent testimony at the PCRA evidentiary hearing, do not constitute newly-discovered facts, for purpose of the newly-discovered facts exception pursuant to Section 9545(b)(1)(ii) but, rather, are newly-discovered or newly-willing sources that confirm or support a previously known fact, namely, as Appellant has consistently maintained, that he was not present in Mount Union on the - 26 - J-S03012-24 evening of the incident.16 See Commonwealth v. Marshall, 947 A.2d 714, 720 (Pa. 2008) (stating, “the focus of the exception is on the newly[-]discovered facts, not a newl

2024See Commonwealth v. Brown, 196 A.3d 130, 193 (Pa. 2018) (a PCRA evidentiary hearing “is not meant to function as a fishing expedition for any possible evidence that may support some speculative claim of ineffectiveness”) (citation omitted).

2024Consequently, this Court affirmed the PCRA court’s order dismissing Appellant’s PCRA petition without a hearing. ____________________________________________ 3 See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and Commonwealth v. Pierce, 515 Pa. 153 , 527 A.2d 973, 975 (1987). -3- J-S47042-23 In his petition for allowance of appeal to our Supreme Court, Appellant presented the following issues (verbatim): I.

2024Consequently, this Court affirmed the PCRA court’s order dismissing Appellant’s PCRA petition without a hearing. ____________________________________________ 3 See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and Commonwealth v. Pierce, 515 Pa. 153 , 527 A.2d 973, 975 (1987). -3- J-S47042-23 In his petition for allowance of appeal to our Supreme Court, Appellant presented the following issues (verbatim): I.

2024See Commonwealth v. Selenski, 228 A.3d 8, 17 (Pa. Super. 2020) (rejecting an ineffectiveness claim for failure to call a witness where the proposed witness did not testify at PCRA evidentiary hearing and petitioner did not demonstrate how the witness’s testimony would have been helpful).

2024See Selenski, 228 A.3d at 17 .

2024Walker’s affidavit, and subsequent testimony at the PCRA evidentiary hearing, do not constitute newly-discovered facts, for purpose of the newly-discovered facts exception pursuant to Section 9545(b)(1)(ii) but, rather, are newly-discovered or newly-willing sources that confirm or support a previously known fact, namely, as Appellant has consistently maintained, that he was not present in Mount Union on the - 26 - J-S03012-24 evening of the incident.16 See Commonwealth v. Marshall, 947 A.2d 714 , 720 (Pa. 2008) (stating, “the focus of the exception is on the newly[-]discovered facts, not a new

2024Walker’s affidavit, and subsequent testimony at the PCRA evidentiary hearing, do not constitute newly-discovered facts, for purpose of the newly-discovered facts exception pursuant to Section 9545(b)(1)(ii) but, rather, are newly-discovered or newly-willing sources that confirm or support a previously known fact, namely, as Appellant has consistently maintained, that he was not present in Mount Union on the - 26 - J-S03012-24 evening of the incident.16 See Commonwealth v. Marshall, 947 A.2d 714, 720 (Pa. 2008) (stating, “the focus of the exception is on the newly[-]discovered facts, not a newl