Case Information
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA v.
RICHARD MCCRACKEN
Appellant No. 1782 WDA 2016 Appeal from the PCRA Order October 20, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0008518-2011 BEFORE: DUBOW, SOLANO, and FITZGERALD, [*] JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED: September 15, 2017 BER 15, 2017
Appellant, Richard McCracken, appeals from the order entered in the
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas denying his first Post Conviction
Relief Act [1] (“PCRA”) petition. Appellant alleges various claims regarding trial
counsel’s ineffectiveness. We affirm.
We adopt the facts and procedural history set forth by the PCRA
court’s opinion. [2] PCRA Ct. Op., 1/12/17, at 1-3. Appellant raises the
following issues for review:
1. Was trial counsel ineffective for not objecting to the
improper inflammatory and prejudicial statement during
Commonwealth’s closing argument:
[Victim] was failed by her whole maternal family. She needs you. You are all she has to stand up for her and for
what [Appellant] did to her[.]
2. Was trial counsel ineffective when he cross-examined
Commonwealth expert witness Dr. Jennifer Wolford and
opened the door to testimony that a hymen can regrow
itself[?] This testimony was extremely prejudicial to
[Appellant’s] defense and there was no trial strategy to
engage in said cross-examination.
3. Was trial counsel ineffective when he did not challenge
Dr. Wolford’s testimony that 90% of the exams of sexual
abuse victims are “normal” in several regards (a) where
did those statistics come from (b) what does normal entail
(c) of the 90% normal examinations, how many entail the
regrowth/rehealing of the hymen[?]
4. Was trial counsel ineffective when he did not challenge
Dr. Wolford on the basis/source of her opinion [regarding]
the regrowth of the hymen, whether that opinion was
generally accepted in the medical community, whether
there were any other experts, treatises or professional
publications that supported her position[?]
5. Was [t]rial [c]ounsel ineffective for failing to present
expert testimony specifically that of Dr. Stephen Guertin,
on behalf of [Appellant], to rebut the testimony of
Commonwealth witness Dr[.] Jennifer Wolford?
6 Did the [PCRA] court have enough information from the
certified record that enabled the court to write a 17 page
opinion in the case[?]
Appellant’s Brief at 3-4 (citation to record omitted).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Donna Jo
McDaniel, we conclude the PCRA court’s opinion comprehensively discusses
and properly disposes of the issues presented. PCRA Ct. Op. at 4-17.
Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the PCRA court’s opinion.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/15/2017
[*] Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
[1] 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.
[2] We note the PCRA court’s opinion states that Appellant was sentenced to two-and-one-half to six years’ imprisonment for unlawful contact with a minor. PCRA Ct. Op. at 2. However, Appellant was actually sentenced to two-and-one-half to five years’ imprisonment on this charge.
[3] The PCRA court’s opinion does not address Appellant’s sixth and final issue, which alleges that the PCRA court erred in finding Appellant’s fifth issue waived. However, in its opinion, the PCRA court concluded that, even if not waived, Appellant’s fifth issue is meritless. PCRA Ct. Op. at 16-17. Therefore, any challenge to the PCRA court finding waiver of Appellant’s fifth issue is moot.