Opinion
J-S07044-17 No. 970 MDA 2016
03-23-2017
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. PEDRO E. CABRERA, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order May 26, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Criminal Division, No(s): CP-22-CR-0000916-2010 BEFORE: BOWES, LAZARUS and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.:
Pedro E. Cabrera ("Cabrera") appeals from the Order denying his Petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act. We affirm.
In its Opinion, the PCRA court set forth the factual and procedural background of this case, which we adopt for the purpose of this appeal. See PCRA Court Opinion, 5/26/16, at 1-4.
On May 26, 2016, the PCRA court entered an Order denying Cabrera's Petition. Cabrera filed a timely Notice of Appeal and a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement of matters complained of on appeal.
On appeal, Cabrera raises the following issue for our review:
Whether [Cabrera] was deprived of his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel when his trial attorney failed to properly investigate exculpatory information[,] and failed to call an exculpatory witness[,] in violation of [Cabrera's] right to effective counsel under the 6th Amendment to the United States
Constitution[,] as well as Article I[,] Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution?Brief for Appellant at 4 (capitalization omitted).
Cabrera contends that trial counsel was ineffective because he "failed to exhaust all reasonable means to contact or interview" Victoria Rolon ("Rolon"), who, Cabrera asserts, possessed exculpatory information that would have corroborated Cabrera's testimony at trial. Id. at 9-10. Cabrera claims that there was no reasonable basis for trial counsel's defensive strategy, which "was based entirely on the testimony of [Cabrera.]" Id. at 11. Cabrera argues that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of his trial would have been different if trial counsel had "tracked down" Rolon. Id. Cabrera points to his trial testimony that he had no knowledge of the presence of guns or drug paraphernalia in the home, and contends that Rolon's testimony would have supported this testimony, and led to his acquittal. Id. at 12.
In reviewing the denial of a PCRA Petition, we examine whether the PCRA court's determination "is supported by the record and free of legal error." Commonwealth v. Rainey , 928 A.2d 215, 223 (Pa. 2007) (citations omitted).
In its Opinion, the PCRA court addressed Cabrera's issue, set forth the relevant law, and determined that the issue lacks merit. See PCRA Court Opinion, 5/26/16, at 5-8. We agree with the reasoning of the PCRA court, which is supported by the record and free of legal error, and affirm on this basis. See id.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 3/23/2017
Image materials not available for display.
See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.