Com. v. Brown, R., Com. v. Brown, R. No. 1489 EDA 2016

On November 26, 2007, Raheem Asmar Brown was implicated in the alleyway shooting death of Mitchell Williams after an eyewitness (Loper) observed a gun on Brown; Brown allegedly left in a white vehicle.
Brown was arrested in October 2008, tried by jury, and convicted of first-degree murder and possession of an instrument of crime; a bench finding convicted him of being prohibited from possessing a firearm.
Brown filed a pro se PCRA petition in 2012; counsel was appointed, filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter, and withdrew. The PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice and later denied relief. Brown appealed pro se.
Brown’s primary claim: ineffective assistance (both of PCRA counsel and trial counsel) for failing to investigate, present, or use compulsory process to secure testimony from several purportedly exculpatory witnesses (Edwards, Lynda Williams, Dante Norman, Francesca Granados, Dante Lewis).
The PCRA court and this Court reviewed witness statements and trial record; several statements describing a shooter in a black hoodie or noting other persons at the scene were in the record or were not shown to identify another perpetrator.
The Superior Court affirmed the PCRA denial, concluding Brown failed to prove prejudice from counsel’s alleged failures because the missing testimony would not likely have changed the outcome.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Effectiveness of counsel for not compelling Edwards and Lynda to testify	Brown: their prior statements would impeach key Commonwealth witness Collier and point blame to others (e.g., Loper, Cosmen)	Commonwealth/PCRA court: statements do not identify another perpetrator; no reasonable probability of different outcome	Denied — no prejudice shown; neither witness exonerated Brown
Failure to secure/introduce Dante Norman’s audiotaped statement	Brown: transcript would show shooter’s clothing and support alibi/alternate-perpetrator theory; counsel should have used the tape	Commonwealth: counsel/investigator could not locate Norman; Sergeant Slowik already testified to clothing description from witnesses	Denied — clothing evidence was presented via Sergeant Slowik; no prejudice shown
Failure to compel Francesca Granados	Brown: her testimony would corroborate alternate narrative of events	Commonwealth/PCRA court: Granados only reported seeing an “individual” and hearing “put it down,” not identifying Brown	Denied — testimony would not be exculpatory or change outcome
Failure to compel Dante Lewis	Brown: Lewis’s statement would impeach Smith and support theory that Cosmen intervened prior to shooting	Commonwealth: Lewis did not witness the shooting and would only lend support to other statements	Denied — no reasonable probability of a different outcome

Commonwealth v. Spotz, 47 A.3d 63 (Pa. 2012) (ineffective assistance standard and presumption of adequate counsel)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (test for counsel ineffectiveness requiring prejudice showing)
Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 889 A.2d 501 (Pa. 2005) (five‑part test for failure to call a witness)
Commonwealth v. Dennis, 950 A.2d 945 (Pa. 2008) (prejudice requirement: reasonable probability of different outcome)
Commonwealth v. Solano, 129 A.3d 1156 (Pa. 2015) (failure to establish any prong of ineffectiveness test is fatal)
Commonwealth v. Montalvo, 114 A.3d 401 (Pa. 2015) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
Commonwealth v. Mallory, 941 A.2d 686 (Pa. 2008) (definition of prejudice under ineffective assistance analysis)