Com. v. Connolly,S. (memorandum)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S70006-13 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. STEVEN CONNOLLY Appellant No. 2973 EDA 2012 Appeal from the PCRA Order September 14, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0012322-2007 BEFORE: GANTMAN, J., OLSON, J., and WECHT, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, J.: FILED DECEMBER 10, 2013 Appellant, Steven Connolly, appeals from the order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, which dismissed his first petition brought pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ( PCRA ).1 We affirm. In its opinion, the PCRA court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them. Appellant raises the following issue for our review: WAS NOT TRIAL COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO CONDUCT A PROPER PRE-TRIAL INVESTIGATION AND PREPARATION OF KNOWN MATERIAL WITNESSES AND ____________________________________________ 1 42 Pa.C.S.A. ยงยง 9541-9546. J-S70006-13 OTHERWISE FAILING TO SECURE THE SERVICES OF AN INVESTIGATOR TO LOCATE AND INTERVIEW SAID MATERIAL WITNESSES; AND WAS NOT PCRA COUNSEL S NO-MERIT LETTER DEFICIENT FOR FAILING TO ADEQUATELY INVESTIGATE AND ADDRESS THIS CLAIM? (Appellant s Brief at 4). Our standard of review for the denial of a PCRA petition is limited to examining whether determination and the evidence whether its of record decision is supports the court s free legal error. of 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; however, we give no deference to the court s legal conclusions. Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190, 1194 (Pa.Super. 2012). Traditionally, issues of credibility are within the sole domain of the trier of fact [because] it is the trier of fact who had the opportunity to personally observe the demeanor of the witnesses. Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 553 Pa. 485, 527, 720 A.2d 79, 99 (1998), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 810, 120 S.Ct. 41, 145 L.Ed.2d 38 (1999). [A]s with any other credibility determination, where the record supports the PCRA court s credibility determinations, those determinations are binding on this Court. Id. After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable M. Teresa Sarmina, we conclude Appellant s issue merits no relief. -2- The PCRA court J-S70006-13 opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented. (See PCRA Court Opinion, dated May 15, 2013, at 5-12) (finding: Appellant, during colloquy with trial court, knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to call material witnesses to testify on his behalf; any evidence from these material witnesses that suggested Appellant was inside victim s home would have utterly and disastrously contradicted central piece of Appellant s trial testimony, that he could not have killed victim because he had not entered victim s home on day of murder; because Appellant voluntarily and freely chose to testify, his attorney would not have been ineffective for choosing not to set forth evidence which would have severely undermined Appellant s claims from witness stand; PCRA counsel s original and amended no-merit letters detailed extent of counsel s review, addressed each claim set forth by Appellant, and explained why counsel believed each claim was without merit; PCRA counsel sent Appellant copy of both no-merit letters; PCRA counsel advised Appellant of his right to proceed pro se or with privately retained counsel if and when PCRA court granted counsel s motion to withdraw). The record supports the PCRA court s decision; therefore, we see no reason to disturb it. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the PCRA court s opinion. Order affirmed. -3- J-S70006-13 Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 12/10/2013 -4-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.