J-S32012-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
STEPHEN DAVIS :
:
Appellant : No. 2085 EDA 2016
Appeal from the PCRA Order June 2, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-09-CR-0004809-2011
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., STABILE, J., and FITZGERALD, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JUNE 26, 2017
Appellant, Stephen Davis, appeals from the order entered in the Bucks
County Court of Common Pleas, which denied his first petition filed pursuant
to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”).1 We affirm.
The PCRA court opinion fully sets forth the relevant facts and
procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no need to restate them.
The court ordered Appellant on July 5, 2016, to file a concise statement of
errors complained of on appeal, per Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b); and Appellant timely
complied on July 21, 2016.
Appellant raises two issues for our review:
____________________________________________
1
42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
___________________________
*Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S32012-17
DID THE [PCRA] COURT [ERR] BY DENYING APPELLANT’S
CLAIM FOR PCRA RELIEF WHEN TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED
TO CALL CHARACTER WITNESSES ON APPELLANT’S
BEHALF?
DID THE [PCRA] COURT [ERR] BY DENYING APPELLANT’S
CLAIM FOR PCRA RELIEF WHEN APPELLANT
UNKNOWINGLY AND INVOLUNTARILY WAIVED HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TESTIFY BASED UPON TRIAL
COUNSEL’S UNREASONABLE ADVICE AND WITHOUT
SUFFICIENT CONSULTATION WITH EFFECTIVE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL?
(Appellant’s Brief at 4).
Our standard of review of the denial of a PCRA petition is limited to
examining whether the evidence of record supports the court’s
determination and whether its decision is free of legal error.
Commonwealth v. Conway, 14 A.3d 101 (Pa.Super. 2011), appeal denied,
612 Pa. 687, 29 A.3d 795 (2011). 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). We give no such deference,
however, to the court’s legal conclusions. Commonwealth v. Ford, 44
A.3d 1190 (Pa.Super. 2012). Traditionally, credibility issues are resolved by
the trier of fact who had the opportunity to observe the witnesses’
demeanor. Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 553 Pa. 485, 720 A.2d 79
(1998), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 810, 120 S.Ct. 41, 145 L.Ed.2d 38 (1999).
Where the record supports the PCRA court’s credibility resolutions, they are
binding on this Court. Id.
-2-
J-S32012-17
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). To prevail on a claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must show, by a
preponderance of the evidence, 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. Commonwealth v. Turetsky, 925 A.2d 876, 880
(Pa.Super. 2007), appeal denied, 596 Pa. 707, 940 A.2d 365 (2007). The
petitioner must demonstrate: (1) the underlying claim has arguable merit;
(2) counsel lacked a reasonable strategic basis for his action or inaction; and
(3) but for counsel’s errors and omissions, there is a reasonable probability
the outcome of the proceedings would have been different. Id. “The
petitioner bears the burden of proving all three prongs of the test.” Id.
“Where it is clear that a petitioner has failed to meet any of the three,
distinct prongs of the…test, the claim may be disposed of on that basis
alone, without a determination of whether the other two prongs have been
met.” Commonwealth v. Steele, 599 Pa. 341, 360, 961 A.2d 786, 797
(2008).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Jeffrey L.
Finley, P.J., we conclude Appellant’s issues merit no relief. The PCRA court
-3-
J-S32012-17
opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions
presented. (See PCRA Court Opinion, filed August 4, 2016 at 8-12) (finding:
(1) Appellant conceded he knew he could call character witnesses after
discussing it with trial counsel; Appellant claimed he gave counsel specific
names and numbers of character witnesses, but trial counsel contradicted
Appellant’s statements and counsel’s file contained no list of potential
character witnesses; Appellant’s mother was only potential character witness
to testify at PCRA hearing; Appellant’s mother indicated she was willing and
able to testify at trial concerning Appellant’s reputation in community as a
non-violent, peaceful person; counsel did not call any character witness to
testify about Appellant’s reputation in community for peacefulness due to
concern that Commonwealth would highlight extent of Victim’s severe
injuries and character witness’ testimony would do nothing to explain how
Victim sustained such severe injuries; trial counsel did not call character
witness to testify about Appellant’s reputation in community as law-abiding
because Commonwealth was prepared to introduce Appellant’s prior
convictions; trial counsel had reasonable strategic basis for not calling
character witnesses during trial; additionally, Appellant failed to provide
additional character witnesses, besides his mother, who were available and
willing to testify; (2) Appellant admitted he understood he had right to
testify and that trial court colloquied him; trial counsel advised Appellant not
to testify because Appellant’s statement to police already provided
-4-
J-S32012-17
Appellant’s version of events, which jury heard; Appellant would face cross-
examination on his prior crimen falsi convictions if he testified; Appellant’s
girlfriend/co-defendant also testified, and her account of events was
consistent with Appellant’s theory of case; counsel had reasonable strategic
basis for advising Appellant not to testify; Appellant heeded counsel’s
advice; therefore, Appellant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims merit
no relief). The record supports the PCRA court’s rationale. Accordingly, we
affirm on the basis of the PCRA court’s opinion.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/26/2017
-5-
Com. v. Davis, S.
Combined Opinion