Com. v. Garrett, I., Com. v. Garrett, I. No. 154 MDA 2016

Appellant Izel Garrett was convicted of second-degree murder, robbery, conspiracy, and firearms violations for a December 6, 2011 killing during a drug transaction; he was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Co-defendant Tyrek Smith testified at trial that Garrett produced a silver .38 revolver, pointed it at the victim, and fired two shots; forensic testimony described a fatal bullet trajectory "left to right, front to back, and slightly upward."
Two .38 revolvers were recovered from the residence; the silver revolver was forensically identified as the murder weapon and two spent casings from it were found in Garrett’s bedroom.
Garrett and his brother Isiah made statements to police implicating Smith as the shooter; Smith had given inconsistent statements before trial and testified against Garrett at trial.
On post-conviction review, Garrett claimed trial counsel was ineffective for not obtaining an independent ballistics expert and sought PCRA funding to retain one; the PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing and denied the request and relief.
The Superior Court affirmed, concluding Garrett failed to prove prejudice from counsel’s alleged failure to obtain a ballistics expert given the totality of the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain a ballistics expert	Garrett: an expert could have shown trajectory consistent with Smith (seated) and impeached Smith, altering the verdict	PCRA/Commonwealth: trajectory evidence would not overcome physical evidence (murder weapon and casings in Garrett’s bedroom); counsel pursued other strategies and suppression motion	Court: No ineffectiveness — Garrett failed to show prejudice from absence of expert testimony
Whether PCRA court abused discretion by denying funds for a ballistics expert	Garrett: funding necessary to develop and present expert testimony to support his claim	Commonwealth: funding unnecessary because expert testimony would not change outcome given existing evidence	Court: No abuse — denial warranted because expert would not have produced different result

Commonwealth v. Medina, 92 A.3d 1210 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
Commonwealth v. Rivera, 10 A.3d 1276 (Pa. Super. 2010) (presumption that counsel is effective)
Commonwealth v. Fulton, 830 A.2d 567 (Pa. 2003) (three-prong ineffectiveness test)
Commonwealth v. Jones, 811 A.2d 994 (Pa. 2002) (failure to satisfy any prong defeats ineffectiveness claim)
Commonwealth v. Travaglia, 661 A.2d 352 (Pa. 1995) (court may resolve ineffectiveness claim on prejudice prong alone)
Commonwealth v. Douglas, 645 A.2d 226 (Pa. 1994) (reasonable basis review of counsel’s conduct)
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 27 A.3d 244 (Pa. Super. 2011) (elements for showing counsel’s failure to call a witness)
Commonwealth v. Bryant, 855 A.2d 726 (Pa. 2004) (must identify available expert and willingness to testify)
Commonwealth v. Copenhefer, 719 A.2d 242 (Pa. 1998) (counsel need not call experts if cross-examination suffices)
Commonwealth v. Williams, 640 A.2d 1251 (Pa. 1994) (similar principles on expert testimony)
Commonwealth v. Luster, 71 A.3d 1029 (Pa. Super. 2013) (failure to call experts standards)
Commonwealth v. Reid, 99 A.3d 470 (Pa. 2014) (PCRA court’s discretion to deny funding for ballistics expert affirmed)