J-S38035-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
ANTHONY CAMEROTA
Appellant No. 3500 EDA 2016
Appeal from the PCRA Order November 10, 2016
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division
at No(s): CP-51-CR-0305521-2006
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., SHOGAN, and FITZGERALD,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 29, 2017
Appellant, Anthony Camerota, appeals from the order dismissing his
first Post Conviction Relief Act1 (“PCRA”) petition. Appellant contends that
both his appellate and trial counsel were ineffective. We affirm.
We adopt the facts and procedural history set forth by the PCRA
court’s opinion. See PCRA Ct. Op., 11/10/16, at 1-3. In this timely appeal,
Appellant raises the following issue for review: “Is Appellant entitled to post-
conviction relief in the form of a new trial or a remand for an evidentiary
hearing since trial counsel and appellate counsel were ineffective for failing
to adequately challenge the Commonwealth’s case at trial and in the direct
appeal, respectively?” Appellant’s Brief at 4.
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1
42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.
J-S38035-17
Appellant argues that his trial counsel failed to adequately challenge
the evidence presented by the Commonwealth. To this end, Appellant
generally avers that trial counsel did not highlight that the blood splatter
evidence was consistent with Appellant’s theory of self-defense and that the
medical examiner’s testimony did not definitively establish that the victim
suffered contact gunshot wounds. Further, Appellant asserts that trial
counsel failed to emphasize that the blood evidence found on the couch
could have been present long before the shooting in question, and that the
shortened barrel of the gun used to shoot the victim could have altered the
trajectory of the bullets fired. Appellant further claims his appellate counsel
was ineffective for failing to highlight these matters on direct appeal
challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. No relief is due.
“Our standard of review of a PCRA court’s dismissal of a PCRA petition
is limited to examining whether the PCRA court’s determination is supported
by the evidence of record and free of legal error.” Commonwealth v.
Wilson, 824 A.2d 331, 333 (Pa. Super. 2003) (en banc) (citation omitted).
It is well settled
that counsel is presumed effective, and to rebut that
presumption, the PCRA petitioner must demonstrate that
counsel’s performance was deficient and that such
deficiency prejudiced him. Strickland v. Washington, [ ]
104 S. Ct. 2052, [ ] (1984). This Court has characterized
the Strickland standard as tripartite, by dividing the
performance element into two distinct parts.
Commonwealth v. Pierce, [ ] 527 A.2d 973, 975 ([Pa.]
1987). Thus, to prove counsel ineffective, [a]ppellant
must demonstrate that: (1) the underlying legal issue has
-2-
J-S38035-17
arguable merit; (2) counsel’s actions lacked an objective
reasonable basis; and (3) [a]ppellant was prejudiced by
counsel's act or omission. Id. at 975.
Commonwealth v. Koehler, 36 A.3d 121, 132 (Pa. 2012).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the PCRA court’s opinion, we conclude the PCRA court’s
opinion properly disposes of Appellant’s arguments regarding the ineffective
assistance of appellate and trial counsel. See PCRA Ct. Op. at 3-9 (finding
Appellant’s arguments regarding respective counsel’s ineffective assistance
lacked merit because (1) the medical examiner’s testimony was “consistent
clear and concise” regarding the range of gunfire as “very, very close, if not
contact” (2) Appellant failed to provide any scientific evidence to support his
claim that the shortened barrel of the gun in question would cast doubt on
the medical examiners conclusions, or to establish what the blood splatter
evidence might indicate, or to prove that the blood stains on and around the
couch were not related to the murder (3) Appellant also failed to
demonstrate that had trial counsel presented the referenced arguments the
result of the proceeding would have been different in light of the evidence
that Appellant admitted shooting the victim four times in the head).
Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the PCRA court’s opinion.
Order affirmed.
-3-
J-S38035-17
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/29/2017
-4-