Com. v. Cater, C., 2518 EDA 2015

On October 27, 2008, Christopher K. Cater approached a group in a vacant lot, produced a sawed-off rifle, demanded money, and shot Mark Mention; Cater was detained by victims until police arrived.
After a bench trial Cater was convicted of multiple counts including aggravated assault, robbery, possession of an instrument of crime, and carrying a firearm without a license; sentenced to 7½–15 years.
Cater filed a pro se PCRA petition (2012); counsel was appointed and an amended petition was filed in 2014. The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and dismissed the petition on July 21, 2015.
Two principal ineffective-assistance claims: (1) trial counsel failed to have the firearm tested for fingerprints; (2) trial counsel failed to impeach witness Mark Mention by questioning him about giving a false name/address at the hospital.
The PCRA court denied discovery and an evidentiary hearing; Cater appealed, arguing the court should have permitted discovery and held a hearing on these claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether PCRA court erred by denying discovery and an evidentiary hearing on counsel's failure to test the firearm for fingerprints	Cater: testing would have exculpated him; discovery needed to locate firearm and show prejudice	Commonwealth/PCRA court: claim speculative; absence of fingerprints is not per se exculpatory; no exceptional circumstances for discovery	Court held denial was proper; Cater’s claim speculative, no reasonable probability of different outcome, no discovery warranted
Whether PCRA court erred by denying hearing on counsel's failure to impeach Mark Mention about giving a false name/address at hospital	Cater: impeachment on name/address would have undermined witness credibility and could have changed outcome	Commonwealth/PCRA court: information known from record (mother’s name/address); trivial and not obviously impeaching given possible explanations; overwhelming evidence of guilt	Court held no reasonable probability of different outcome; denial of hearing proper
Whether mere allegation of counsel lacking reasonable basis requires a hearing	Cater: court must inquire and hold a hearing to determine counsel’s basis	Commonwealth/PCRA court: petitioner must prove all ineffectiveness prongs; failure to meet any prong permits denial without hearing	Court reaffirmed that unsupported assertions do not compel a hearing; claim meritless

Walker v. Pennsylvania, 36 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2011) (standard for PCRA hearing entitlement)
Edmiston v. Commonwealth, 65 A.3d 339 (Pa. 2013) (denial of PCRA discovery reviewed for abuse of discretion; discovery not a fishing expedition)
Franklin v. Commonwealth, 990 A.2d 795 (Pa. Super. 2010) (three‑prong test for ineffective assistance under PCRA)
Frey v. Commonwealth, 41 A.3d 605 (Pa. Super. 2012) (trial court’s discretion to permit discovery only upon exceptional circumstances)
Dickerson v. Commonwealth, 900 A.2d 407 (Pa. Super. 2006) (mere speculation insufficient to show exceptional circumstances for discovery)
Perez v. Commonwealth, 103 A.3d 344 (Pa. Super. 2014) (prejudice prong requires reasonable probability of different outcome)
Charleston v. Commonwealth, 94 A.3d 1012 (Pa. Super. 2014) (unsupported speculation does not establish reasonable probability)
Pursell v. Commonwealth, 724 A.2d 293 (Pa. 1999) (ineffective assistance claims based on conjecture fail)
Wright v. Commonwealth, 388 A.2d 1084 (Pa. Super. 1978) (absence of fingerprints not necessarily exculpatory)
Heilman v. Commonwealth, 867 A.2d 542 (Pa. Super. 2005) (absence of DNA/evidence is not proof of absence)
Feliciano v. Commonwealth, 69 A.3d 1270 (Pa. Super. 2013) (appellant bears burden to show PCRA court erred)