J.S36024-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
DAVID REDMOND
Appellant No. 2855 EDA 2013
Appeal from the PCRA Order September 30, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0006047-2010
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., JENKINS, J., and FITZGERALD, J.*
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING STATEMENT BY FITZGERALD, J.
:FILED AUGUST 07, 2014
I agree with the majority that Appellant was not entitled to relief based
about being sexually assaulted. In my view, however, the pleadings and
the record, raise genuine issues of fact r
counsel was ineffective for failing to call Karlesio Davenport at trial.
Specifically, there remain issues of fact as to whether Davenport was awake
or asleep at the time of the assault, whether he was able to observe the
assault perpetrated by Appellant and his codefendant, and whether he could
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J. S53041/13
credibly testify that Appellant and codefendant did not sexually assault the
xculpatory testimony was implausible and that
the record was not appropriate. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 908(A)(2) (stating that
-conviction
PCRA cour
resulted in prejudice.
-2-