J-S43014-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
LAURENN HARVIN
Appellant No. 2521 EDA 2013
Appeal from the PCRA Order August 16, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-1107251-2004
CP-51-CR-1107261-2004
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., ALLEN, J., and FITZGERALD, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED AUGUST 05, 2014
Appellant, Laurenn Harvin,1 appeals from the order entered in the
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, denying his petition brought
2
pursuant to the Post Conviction Reli We affirm.
The PCRA court opinion sets forth the relevant facts and procedural
history of this case as follows:
On June 14, 2004, the [victims], Braheem Golphin and
located at 838 North 43rd Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. At approximately [4:07 a.m.], Mr. Golphin
____________________________________________
1
2
42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546
_____________________________________________
*Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S43014-14
was awakened by three men standing in his bedroom
demanding money. After telling the men that he did not
have any money, Mr. Golphin was shot once in the right
shinbone by co-defendant, Elijah Miller. Due to the noise
awakened. He walked towards the room, observed one
other male, co-defendant Keon Sloan, was standing over
the bed. Mr. Mayberry observed a third male, Appellant,
Elijah Miller subsequently made eye contact with Mr.
Mayberry, raised his gun toward Mr. Mayberry and began
shooting. Sloan, then, turned the gun on Mr. Golphin and
shot at him until the gun was emptied. During this time,
as Mr. Mayberry attempted to take cover in his bedroom,
he was shot by one of the assailants. Mr. Mayberry was
able to overtake one of the men and strip him of the gun.
over Mr. Mayberry, and shot him multiple times. Mr.
Mayberry was shot a total of thirteen times throughout his
entire body. Mr. Mayberry remained in a coma for two
months following the incident and is now permanently
disabled.
All of the assailants were known to Mr. Golphin from the
neighborhood; they were originally identified by their
identified as [Appellant], was identified by both...Mr.
Mayberry and Mr. Golphin, and arrested on June 17, 2004.
notes of testimony.
* * *
On October 7, 2005, Appellant...was found guilty of
Aggravated
following a jury trial. On January 31, 2006, Appellant was
-2-
J-S43014-14
On [November 27, 2007], the Pennsylvania Superior Court
[Appellant] filed [his first] pro-se petition under the
[PCRA]. On Ju
allocatur [petition] to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was
reinstated. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied
November 24, 2009. On February 27, [2010], Appellant,
thereafter, presented his supplemental PCRA petition.
On April 18, 2011, [the PCRA court] entered an order
January 23, 2013, the Superior Court remanded the case
for an evidentiary hearing to resolve the outstanding
issues concerning competing factual contentions regarding
trial. An evidentiary hearing pursuant to the Superior
C
Shreeves-Johns on August 16, 2013. Following the
September [3], 2013.
(PCRA Court Opinion, filed October 31, 2013, at 1-3) (internal citations
omitted). Subsequently, Appellant voluntarily filed a concise statement of
errors complained of on appeal, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
Appellant raises the following issue for our review:
WAS THE TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE IN
FAILING TO CALL THE ALIBI WITNESS, NICOLE LYNN?
Appellant claims his girlfriend, Nicole Lynn, was ready, able, and
willing to testify during trial that Appellant spent the night with her on June
14, 2004. Appellant asserts trial counsel informed Ms. Lynn that her
-3-
J-S43014-14
testimony was not necessary, and that she should go home. Appellant
maintains there is a reasonable probability the jury would not have convicted
Appellant if the jury had heard this testimony. Appellant concludes trial
counsel was ineffective for failing to call Ms. Lynn as an alibi witness, and
Appellant a new trial. We disagree.
Our standard of review of the denial of a PCRA petition is limited to
determination and whether its decision is free of legal error.
Commonwealth v. Wright, 935 A.2d 542 (Pa.Super. 2007). This Court
grants great deference to the findings of the PCRA court if the record
contains any support for those findings. Commonwealth v. Boyd, 923
A.2d 513 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal denied, 593 Pa. 754, 932 A.2d 74
(2007). If the record supports a post-
determination, it is binding on the appellate court. Commonwealth v.
Knighten, 742 A.2d 679, 682 (Pa.Super. 1999), appeal denied, 563 Pa.
659, 759 A.2d 383 (2000).
The law presumes counsel has rendered effective assistance.
Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 858 A.2d 1219, 1222 (Pa.Super. 2004),
appeal denied, 582 Pa. 695, 871 A.2d 189 (2005). When asserting a claim
of ineffective assistance of counsel, the petitioner is required to make the
following showing: (1) the underlying claim is of arguable merit; (2) counsel
-4-
J-S43014-14
had no reasonable strategic basis for his action or inaction; and, (3) but for
the errors and omissions of counsel, there is a reasonable probability that
the outcome of the proceedings would have been different.
Commonwealth v. Kimball, 555 Pa. 299, 312, 724 A.2d 326, 333 (1999).
The failure to satisfy any prong of the test for ineffectiveness will cause the
claim to fail. Gonzalez, supra.
petitioner must demonstrate:
(1) the witness existed; (2) the witness was available; (3)
counsel was informed of the existence of the witness or
counsel should otherwise have known of [her]; (4) the
witness was prepared to cooperate and testify for
Appellant at trial; and (5) the absence of the testimony
prejudiced Appellant so as to deny him a fair trial. A
defendant must establish prejudice by demonstrating that
he was denied a fair trial because of the absence of the
testimony of the proposed witness. Further,
ineffectiveness for failing to call a witness will not be found
where a defendant fails to provide affidavits from the
alleged witnesses indicating availability and willingness to
cooperate with the defense.
Commonwealth v. O'Bidos, 849 A.2d 243, 249 (Pa.Super. 2004), appeal
denied, 580 Pa. 696, 860 A.2d 123 (2004) (quoting Commonwealth v.
Khalil, 806 A.2d 415, 422 (Pa.Super. 2002), appeal denied, 572 Pa. 754,
818 A.2d 503 (2003)) (internal citations omitted).
lows:
Although Appellant maintains that Ms. Lynn was ready,
willing and able to testify as an alibi witness at his trial,
-5-
J-S43014-14
contradictions, suggests the exact opposite. This [c]ourt
credible because from the inception of the case Mr. Keaney
has exemplified his efforts to call Ms. Lynn as an alibi
existence as an alibi witness from Appellant. Mr. Keaney
acted as any prudent attorney would by hiring an
investigator to ascertain the viability of Ms. Lynn as an
alibi witness. Once Mr. Keaney received a favorable report
from the investigator, he demonstrated his intention to call
Ms. Lynn as a witness by notifying the Commonwealth that
he had a potential alibi witness.
Subsequently, Mr. Keaney had a conversation with Ms.
Lynn on the first day of trial regarding her prospective
testimony. Notwithstanding the slight deviation from the
still intended to call her as a witness in the trial and did so
on October 5, 2005, when she failed to appear. Contrary
videntiary
hearing that Mr. Keaney did not call Ms. Lynn as an alibi
witness because he no longer needed her testimony, Mr.
Keaney asked this [c]ourt for a continuance for the sole
purpose of locating his alibi witness.
Once he spoke to Ms. Lynn, Mr. Keaney discovered that
she had once again changed her story by stating that she
and Appellant slept in separate rooms on the night of the
incident. It would have been reasonable for Mr. Keaney to
case rather than bolster it. Mr. Keaney made all efforts to
stories and her failure to appear on the day she was called
to testify demonstrate that she was not ready, willing, and
call her as a witness was reasonable.
to call Ms. Lynn as a trial witness was reasonable,
Appellant has failed to establish his claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel.
(PCRA Court Opinion at 7-8). Our review of the record confirms the PCRA
-6-
J-S43014-14
See Boyd, supra;
Knighten, supra. Ms. Lynn was not ready, willing, and able to testify when
defense counsel called her as a witness on October 5, 2005.
supra. Further, defense counsel did not call Ms. Lynn as a witness the
following day because Ms. Lynn changed her story yet again. In her newest
whereabouts throughout the night of the incident. Trial counsel had a
reasonable, strategic basis for ultimately deciding not to call Ms. Lynn as an
alibi witness. See Kimball, supra. Trial counsel proceeded in a manner
the three-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel. See id.
Acco
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/5/2014
-7-