Com. v. Carter, R. ( 2022 )

J-A25045-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
RALPH JUSTIN CARTER :
:
Appellant : No. 22 WDA 2021
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 24, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0008812-2012
BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., KING, J., and COLINS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY COLINS, J.: FEBRUARY 4, 2022
Ralph Justin Carter appeals from the order that, following a hearing,
dismissed his amended first Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) petition. See
42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. On appeal, Carter presents four interrelated
issues premised on the allegation that his trial counsel was ineffective for the
way that it handled certain audio recordings taken of Carter while he was in
jail. In particular, Carter contends that because trial counsel never had the
opportunity to review the alleged audio recordings’ contents, counsel
improperly provided Carter with advice that ultimately led to him not testifying
on his own behalf. Although we are cognizant of both the Commonwealth’s
timing as it pertains to the audio recording disclosure and trial counsel’s
corresponding actions after becoming aware of those recordings, we conclude
____________________________________________
 Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A25045-21
that Carter has failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel.
Accordingly, we affirm.
The facts underpinning Carter’s convictions are not particularly relevant
to this present appeal. However, by way of background, drugs, drug
paraphernalia, and a firearm were found in Carter’s residence. These items
were uncovered after the office overseeing Carter’s parole had been “tipped
off” as to their existence by an informant.
At trial, Carter maintained that the contraband found at his home were
not his and that a corresponding confession he provided to police was
unreliable. To supplement his defense, Carter originally insisted that he
wished to testify on his own behalf despite having prior crimen falsi
convictions.
During an afternoon colloquy with the court over that desire to testify,
a recess was taken for Carter to discuss with trial counsel his right to call
character witnesses. At recess, the Commonwealth informed Carter and trial
counsel that it had audio recordings of calls Carter had made while he was
inside the jail. The ninety-two minutes of recordings, which the
Commonwealth had just received that morning and reviewed during that day’s
lunch break, included calls made on the eve of and during trial and were
asserted by the Commonwealth to contain both incriminating statements as
-2-
J-A25045-21
well as language instructing witnesses how to testify.1
Trial counsel stridently advised Carter as to the inherent problems he
faced if he were to testify on his behalf. Counsel believed that, based on the
Commonwealth’s summary of the recordings’ contents, they would be
admitted into evidence notwithstanding any kind of objection. Counsel also
was cognizant of Carter’s crimen falsi convictions. To counsel, both situations
had a high propensity to lead to impeachment.
Following the court’s recess, Carter decided to knowingly waive his right
to testify on his own behalf after being apprised by counsel and the court of
his right to do so. Carter indicated that it would not be in his best interest to
testify given that it would introduce the jail recordings to the jury and
additionally expose his past criminal record.
Ultimately, a jury convicted Carter of possessing drug paraphernalia,
possessing a controlled substance, possessing a controlled substance with the
intent to deliver, and possessing a firearm as a person not able to possess. 2
Resultantly, Carter was sentenced to eight to sixteen years of incarceration,
which would subsequently be reduced to seven years, two months to fourteen
years, four months of incarceration after pursuing a direct appeal from his
judgment of sentence.
____________________________________________
1 The Commonwealth never furnished trial counsel with the recordings nor any
kind of transcript stemming from those calls. Later, too, it would be stated
that at least some portions of the tapes were irrelevant for trial purposes.
2See 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(32); 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16); 35 P.S. § 780-
113(a)(30); and 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105(a).
-3-
J-A25045-21
Following his direct appeal, Carter filed a pro se PCRA petition. The court
appointed PCRA counsel who thereafter found that Carter raised no non-
frivolous claims in his petition. Correspondingly, PCRA counsel filed a no-merit
letter pursuant to Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) and
Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc),
wherein counsel requested permission from the court to withdraw. The court
noticed its intent to dismiss Carter’s petition without a hearing, giving him
twenty days to respond. After that time had elapsed without a response, the
court dismissed his petition, deeming it to be patently frivolous.
Carter then filed a pro se notice of appeal seeking redress in this Court,
asserting that he never received notice of the court’s intent to dismiss his
petition without a hearing. Moreover, Carter claimed that he did not timely
receive PCRA counsel’s no-merit letter. The Commonwealth conceded that
Carter had not received the court’s notice of its intent to dismiss his petition.
Predicated on this concession, this Court vacated the PCRA court’s order so
that a new notice of intent to dismiss could be issued. This new notice gave
Carter twenty days to raise any challenges to his counsel’s no-merit letter.
After that, Carter filed a pro se amendment to his PCRA petition, which
raised several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Carter’s petition was
ultimately dismissed without a hearing. Following dismissal, Carter filed
another pro se notice of appeal, which alleged that the PCRA court erred by
not conducting a hearing on his trial counsel’s handling of the jail recordings.
This Court ascertained that, given the existence of unresolved questions of
-4-
J-A25045-21
fact related to those recordings, the PCRA abused its discretion by dismissing
Carter’s petition without a hearing. See Commonwealth v. Carter, 1105
WDA 2019 (Pa. Super., May 27, 2019) (unpublished memorandum). We
consequently ordered the appointment of counsel on Carter’s behalf to
conduct an evidentiary hearing on his ineffectiveness claims.
New PCRA counsel, among other things, filed a motion in limine seeking
to preclude the Commonwealth from offering the jail recordings at the
evidentiary hearing. This motion was denied. In the end, after the court
received testimony from Carter, Carter’s trial counsel, and the
Commonwealth, it dismissed his petition, finding no merit to any of his
ineffectiveness contentions.
After this disposition, Carter filed a notice of appeal. The relevant parties
have complied with their respective obligations under Pennsylvania Rule of
Appellate Procedure 1925, and as such, this appeal is ripe for review.
On appeal, Carter presents four separate questions for review. However,
all four questions fall under the auspice of claiming that his trial counsel was
ineffective. Distilled down, Carter claims that counsel was ineffective given
that, without having reviewed the tapes: (1) it provided advice leading to
Carter waiving his right to testify; (2) it determined that the tapes would be
admissible; and (3) it did not object to the Commonwealth’s late disclosure of
evidence. See Appellant’s Brief, at 5-6. In addition, Carter avers that the PCRA
court erred in denying his motion in limine because: (1) the content of the
tapes was prejudicial; and (2) the specific language used in those tapes was
-5-
J-A25045-21
not known to counsel when it provided Carter with advice. See id., at 6.
Preliminarily, we note that this Court reviews the denial of a PCRA
petition based on whether the record supports the PCRA court’s findings. See
Commonwealth v. Fears, 86 A.3d 795, 803 (Pa. 2014). In addition, we
ascertain whether such a denial is free from legal error. See id. If the record
supports the PCRA court’s findings, this Court is very deferential to the lower
court’s ultimate determination. See Commonwealth v. Boyd, 923 A.2d 513,
515 (Pa. Super. 2007). Legal conclusions, however, are not treated with that
same corresponding deference. See Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190,
1194 (Pa. Super. 2012).
As to a claim asserting ineffective assistance of counsel, we are guided
by a well-settled set of precepts:
We presume counsel's effectiveness, and an appellant bears the
burden of proving otherwise. To establish ineffectiveness of
counsel, a PCRA petitioner must plead and prove: his underlying
legal claim has arguable merit; counsel's actions lacked any
reasonable basis; and counsel's actions prejudiced him. Failure to
satisfy any prong of the ineffectiveness test requires dismissal of
the claim. Arguable merit exists when the factual statements are
accurate and could establish cause for relief. Whether the facts
rise to the level of arguable merit is a legal determination.
Commonwealth v. Urwin, 219 A.3d 167, 172 (Pa. Super. 2019) (internal
citations and quotation marks omitted). As to what constitutes “reasonable
basis,” “[t]he test for deciding whether counsel had a reasonable basis for his
action or inaction is whether no competent counsel would have chosen that
action or inaction, or, the alternative, not chosen, offered a significantly
-6-
J-A25045-21
greater potential chance of success.” Commonwealth v. Stewart, 84 A.3d
701, 707 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation omitted). As such, “[c]ounsel’s decisions
will be considered reasonable if they effectuated his client’s interest.” Id.(citation omitted).
Carter asserts that “the crux of this appeal is whether [he] knowingly
and intelligently waived his right to testify on his own behalf during his jury
trial.” Appellant’s Brief, at 19. “The decision of whether or not to testify on
one’s own behalf is ultimately to be made by the defendant after full
consultation with counsel.” Commonwealth v. Nieves, 746 A.2d 1102, 1104
(Pa. 2000). In this specific domain, “the appropriate standard for assessing
whether a defendant was prejudiced by trial counsel’s ineffectiveness
regarding the waiver of his right to testify is whether the result of the waiver
proceeding would have been different absent counsel’s ineffectiveness[.]”
Commonwealth v. Walker, 110 A.3d 1000, 1005 (Pa. Super. 2015)
(emphasis in original) (contrasting this assessment with the much different
consideration of “whether the outcome of the trial itself would have been more
favorable had the defendant taken the stand[]”). However, Walker also
reinforces the broader ineffective assistance of counsel test by requiring a
defendant to demonstrate underlying merit to his or her claim as well as show
that trial counsel had no reasonable basis in advising that defendant not to
testify. See id.While it may be true that “where a defendant voluntarily waives his right
-7-
J-A25045-21
to testify after a colloquy, he generally cannot argue that trial counsel was
ineffective for failing to call him to the stand,” Commonwealth v. Rigg, 84
A.3d 1080 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation omitted), there can also be “limited
instances where a colloquy does not preclude trial counsel from being held
ineffective based on erroneous advice provided to his client about testifying[.]”
Id. Specifically,
[i]n order to sustain a claim that counsel was ineffective for failing
to advise the appellant of his rights in this regard, the appellant
must demonstrate either that counsel interfered with his right to
testify, or that counsel gave specific advice so unreasonable as to
vitiate a knowing and intelligent decision to testify on his own
behalf.
Nieves, 746 A.2d at 1104 (emphasis added).
We agree with Carter that the record reflects his original desire to
testify. See N.T., 10/22/13, at 147. However, after the recess break, Carter
was “heavily influenced” by the Commonwealth’s disclosure of the jail tapes
and his resulting conversation with trial counsel, who believed the tapes to be
admissible. See id., at 151. Although he still wanted to testify, Carter “decided
it’s not in [his] best interest to take the stand.” Id., at 152. Carter made this
decision after the court explained that if he were to testify, his criminal record
and the taped conversations might have been placed before the jury. See id.
Carter relies on Commonwealth v. Stewart for the proposition that
any kind of assessment as to the admissibility of the tapes was “clearly
unreasonable as [trial counsel] never reviewed the information contained on
the [j]ail [r]ecordings.” Appellant’s Brief at 22. In Stewart, this Court found
-8-
J-A25045-21
that trial counsel was ineffective as it “failed to substantively interview either
[that defendant] or his alibi witness, and declined to present the possible alibi
witness, despite permitting [that defendant] to testify as to the alibi.” 84 A.3d
at 712. Other than citing to this case, Carter does not explain the legal import
of Stewart as it relates to his own case, notwithstanding the fact that both
dealt or deal with, at a surface level, ineffective assistance of counsel. Carter
further utilizes Commonwealth v. Nieves to reinforce the notion that
erroneous advice, such as advising a client not to testify for fear of
impeachment based on prior convictions that were not crimen falsi, constitutes
a vitiation of a defendant’s knowing right to testify on his own behalf. See 746
A.2d at 1104-05.
The “misinformation” Carter contends is present in this case is trial
counsel relaying to Carter and the court that he believed the tapes would
probably be admitted. To Carter, the fact that some segments of the
recordings were admittedly irrelevant is congruent with counsel’s incorrect
advice and misstatement of law in Nieves as to what constitutes a crimen
falsi conviction or what crimes could lead to impeachment on that basis.
Although Carter disputes that he “instructed witnesses how to testify or
otherwise engaged in improper activity during the calls[,]” Appellant’s Reply
Brief, at 5 n.1, nowhere does he unequivocally state that any or all of the calls
could not or would not have been admitted at trial. Instead, Carter merely
suggests that because some portions of the calls would not have been relevant
-9-
J-A25045-21
(and therefore not admissible)3, which is understandable given that the tapes
spanned ninety-two minutes in length, it tainted any advice his attorney gave
to him regarding his ability to testify.
While Carter initially wanted to testify despite his crimen falsi
convictions and against his counsel’s wishes, see PCRA Hearing, 11/6/20, at
14, the disclosure of the tapes unquestionably influenced Carter’s final
decision. However, when juxtaposed against the Nieves case, we cannot see
how Carter’s trial counsel, who already did not want Carter to testify,
explaining to Carter that it was not a good idea for him to testify on his own
behalf while equipped with knowledge of his crimen falsi convictions as well
as having a general sense of the tapes’ damaging contents, rises to the level
of being analogous to a complete misstatement of law. As such, trial counsel’s
specific advice, calculated based on multiple pitfalls Carter was sure to face if
he were to testify, was not “so unreasonable” as to vitiate Carter’s knowing
waiver of his right to testify.
In a more practical sense, Carter highlights that admission of the tapes
would have required a judicial ruling under Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 403,
which allows the court to exclude relevant evidence if “its probative value is
outweighed by the danger of … unfair prejudice[.]” Pa.R.E. 403. To Carter,
____________________________________________
3For example, at the PCRA hearing, the Commonwealth indicated that it would
not have offered into evidence a call involving a discussion of the jurors taking
part in Carter’s case as it was not relevant. See PCRA Hearing, 11/6/20, at
111.
- 10 -
J-A25045-21
trial counsel’s determination that the tapes would be admissible and harmful
cannot amount to reasonable advice because counsel had never taken the
time to review them. Furthermore, as alluded to above, the Commonwealth’s
subsequent disclosure at the PCRA hearing indicated that portions of the jail
recordings were irrelevant. Accordingly, to Carter, such an admission by the
Commonwealth further reinforces the ambiguous nature of whether the
recordings would have been admissible at all.
While the actual content of the phone recordings would not be placed
into the record until after his trial, we are at a crossroads in evaluating,
through the lens of the PCRA court’s determination, what trial counsel knew
at the time, what the Commonwealth disclosed to trial counsel and when, and
the import of the now-known statements made by Carter in the phone calls.
Clearly, as will be outlined below, Carter did make statements that could be
construed as an attempt to manipulate witness testimony, which could
therefore have formed the basis to impeach his credibility. See
Commonwealth v. Reid, 811 A.2d 530, 550 (Pa. 2002). As the PCRA court
found the Commonwealth credible insofar as it accurately disclosed the jail
calls’ contents and trial counsel to be credible when it utilized that information
to further reinforce the idea that it was a bad idea for Carter to testify, we find
such a determination to be supported by the record and not unreasonable
under the circumstances.
Relatedly, Carter believes that there was “no strategic justification for
- 11 -
J-A25045-21
providing advice [to him] and [placing] a statement on the record regarding
the admissibility of evidence which was never reviewed.” Appellant’s Brief, at
34. Although such a holding was formulated in the context of exculpatory
information,
[t]he Sixth Amendment guarantee of effective assistance of
counsel assumes, since counsel is presumed effective, that the
attorney will read the materials and find the helpful information.
This is why ineffectiveness claims can be premised upon a failure
to adequately investigate and review the materials provided to the
defense. Thus, the onus is on counsel to review all materials to
which she has access.
Commonwealth v. Maldonodo, 173 A.3d 769, 783 (Pa. Super. 2017).
In Commonwealth v. Mabie, our Supreme Court found that counsel’s
reliance on the Commonwealth’s file of his client amounted to ineffective
assistance because it foreclosed that counsel from questioning other witnesses
and reviewing his client’s hospital records, two avenues that “may have
established a defense[.]” 359 A.2d 369, 374 (Pa. 1976). Because “no such
claim of strategy [could] be attached to a decision not to interview or make
an attempt to interview eyewitnesses prior to trial[, …] no reasonable basis
designed to effectuate [his client’s] interest [could] be attributed to counsel’s
failure to question [those] witnesses.” Id., at 374-75. Moreover, use of “the
prosecution’s file [was] not a substitute for an independent investigation by
defense counsel.” Id., at 374; see also Commonwealth v. Baxter, 640 A.2d
1271, 1274 (Pa. 1994) (stating that trial counsel’s reliance on the
Commonwealth to provide her with discovery of information relevant to the
- 12 -
J-A25045-21
veracity of the Commonwealth’s witnesses proved ineffective as she failed to
investigate a certain witness whose story turned out to be factually
inaccurate).
Unlike Mabie, the case presently before this Court is not one in which
trial counsel failed to interview a witness nor one where counsel extensively
relied on a file constructed by the Commonwealth. Instead, trial counsel, in
the context of already having explained to Carter that it was not wise for him
to testify, believed the Commonwealth’s representation as to the tapes’
contents, see PCRA Hearing, 11/6/20, at 39-40, the substance of which
ultimately turned out to be, at least as it relates to portions of the tapes, true.
Trial counsel, having had previous experiences with that Commonwealth’s
attorney, trusted the information he received and was cognizant of the
Commonwealth’s duty, through its attorneys, not to falsify evidence as officers
of the court. See id., at 40. Under these circumstances, we do not see how
counsel provided unreasonable advice.
It bears repeating that the genesis of trial counsel’s advice for Carter
not to testify did not stem from the Commonwealth’s disclosure of the jail
tapes. Trial counsel knew of Carter’s prior crimen falsi convictions and believed
that Carter would not make a good witness. The tapes, however, reinforced
trial counsel’s position that testifying would not be in Carter’s best interest.
Although it took the existence of the tapes for Carter to ultimately agree with
his counsel, we see nothing wrong with trial counsel’s multi-faceted, if not
- 13 -
J-A25045-21
accumulative, approach in advising Carter of the detriments he could face
should he have taken the stand on his own behalf.
Carter also faults the Commonwealth’s late disclosure of the jail tapes,
having presented knowledge of their existence to Carter and his counsel five
hours after the Commonwealth’s receipt of those tapes. Based on this late
disclosure, Carter claims trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to
those tapes’ admissibility.4
The Commonwealth was mandatorily obligated to disclose the jail tapes
pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 573(B)(1)(g). Given the
Commonwealth’s continuing duty to disclose, which operates throughout trial,
the Commonwealth had to “promptly notify [Carter] or the court of [any]
additional evidence, material, or witnesses.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 573(D).
Based on the Commonwealth’s testimony, on the day it disclosed the
tapes to Carter mid-afternoon, it received them first thing that morning and
then listened to them during the lunch hour that corresponded with Carter’s
trial.5 Carter claims that this timing “all but assured that trial counsel would
not have an opportunity to review [the tapes].” Appellant’s Brief, at 36. To
____________________________________________
4 As there was no attempt by the Commonwealth to admit the tapes at trial,
it is unclear how such an objection would have been made at that moment.
5 The Commonwealth indicated that it was possible that it did not have
physical possession of the tapes until after Carter’s trial had started that
morning. See PCRA Hearing, 11/6/20, at 116. Under this timeline, the earliest
that the tapes could have been reviewed was during the lunch hour.
- 14 -
J-A25045-21
reinforce this position, Carter posits that the Commonwealth engaged in an
impermissible “trial by ambush.” Id.
In Commonwealth v. Ulen, our Supreme Court vacated a conviction
after the Commonwealth admitted into evidence an incriminating phone call
of a defense witness midway through trial. See 650 A.2d 416, 417 (Pa. 1994).
The discovery of the tape “had not been proffered [to defense counsel] prior
to trial.” Id. However, it was admitted after that defense witness had provided
testimony. As it almost certainly had an impact on whether defense counsel
would have called that witness had the tapes been disclosed prior to the
witness’s testimony, such a failure to disclose warranted the award of a new
trial.
Here, however, the Commonwealth, at Carter’s trial, made no attempt
to admit these tapes, and the record reflects that it was not possible for the
Commonwealth to provide Carter with those tapes prior to his trial. Therefore,
the factual circumstances are eminently distinguishable from Ulen.
Furthermore, Carter provides no authority for the proposition that a “trial by
ambush” can occur even if the specifically contested evidence never goes
before the court or jury.
To the extent that Carter implies that the Commonwealth should have
provided the jail tapes to Carter immediately after receiving them, Carter does
not offer any support to reinforce this contention, too. Carter’s suggestion
necessarily means that disclosure was warranted even prior to the
- 15 -
J-A25045-21
Commonwealth’s review of those tapes. It strains credulity to obligate the
Commonwealth to produce such material prior to it making an assessment as
to its contents.
Although, obviously, the Commonwealth had knowledge of the tapes’
existence hours before it disclosed them to Carter, it did not, nor could not,
have decided the tapes’ trial materiality prior to review. See Pa.R.Crim.P.
573(B)(1). Following the timeline of events as they happened on that day, the
Commonwealth then needed time to review the tapes itself, which it did during
the lunch break, before then conveying a general understanding of the tapes’
contents to Carter one to two hours later. While the timing was not ideal given
the timing of the calls themselves in addition to Carter’s trial schedule
preventing an immediate review, we do not believe that the Commonwealth
engaged in an “unnecessary delay in disclosure,” Appellant’s Reply Brief, at 8,
serving to prohibit Carter and his counsel from “having a meaningful
opportunity to review evidence the Commonwealth intended to offer should
[he] testify.” Id.Finally, Carter, armed with the language this Court used in remanding
this case, contends that entering the jail calls into evidence at the PCRA
evidentiary hearing was irrelevant, if not prejudicial. See Appellant’s Brief, at
39, 41 (writing that the jail calls’ “content had no bearing on the advice
provided to [] Carter which serves as the basis of the ineffective assistance of
counsel claim”). Instead, when ruling on the motion in limine seeking to
- 16 -
J-A25045-21
prevent the admittance of those tapes, Carter believes that the PCRA court
should have evaluated counsel’s performance predicated on the facts as they
existed at the time, namely without the benefit of counsel knowing the specific
conversations contained in jail tapes.
As Carter claims this evidentiary ruling was erroneous, he asserts that
it must be assessed under the harmless error standard. See Appellant’s Brief,
at 41. Even assuming such an admission was incorrect, the tapes do, in fact,
corroborate counsel’s nondeficient performance at the time, lending credence
to the notion that any resulting impact was harmless. Stated differently, the
content of the tapes was vital in corroborating the Commonwealth’s position
that the tapes contained inculpatory statements that could lead to
impeachment.
As the lower court surmised, one of the key issues at the PCRA hearing
was whether the Commonwealth “had accurately summarized the content to
trial counsel and whether the recordings could be admitted at trial.” Trial Court
Opinion, 4/16/21, at 6. The court continued: “[f]or this [c]ourt to determine
if counsel was ineffective for accepting the proffer from [the Commonwealth]
that the recordings were damaging, this [c]ourt would need to review the
recordings and make that determination for itself.” Id.When the court listened to the calls at the PCRA hearing, it heard, inter
alia, Carter telling his friend to inform Carter’s sister, a witness Carter wanted
to have testify on his behalf, that she needed to be ready and that he would
- 17 -
J-A25045-21
“tell her everything she needed to say.” Jail Call 1, at 11. In a separate call
directly to his sister, Carter asked: “This is all I want you to testify to, you
hear me?” Jail Call 5, at 4. Later in that same conversation, Carter stated: “I
need you to manipulate the whole situation so this shit go right … I can’t
coordinate this. … There’s only so many calls I can make.” Id., at 27-28.
The content of these calls was crucial in the PCRA court’s chain of
determinations. First, the calls, by their very content, demonstrated that
Carter’s language was, at a minimum, legally problematic. Second, the
Commonwealth accurately disclosed to trial counsel that those calls had a high
propensity of leading to impeachment. Third, trial counsel’s corresponding
decision to, again, emphasize the detriments Carter would likely have faced
should he have testified on his own behalf was reasonable given the context
of counsel’s pre-existing and well-founded opposition to him testifying as well
as the Commonwealth’s revelatory, and largely accurate, description of the
tapes it intended to introduce.
Accordingly, as we find no basis to conclude that trial counsel was
ineffective, we affirm the PCRA court’s order dismissing Carter’s PCRA petition.
Order affirmed.
- 18 -
J-A25045-21
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/4/2022
- 19 -