Appeal from the PCRA Order November 28, 2012, in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, Criminal Division at Nos. CP-09-CR-0005254-2007, CP-09-CR-0005253-2007, CP-09-CR-0005277-2007
BEFORE: DONOHUE, WECHT and STRASSBURGER [*], JJ.
In these consolidated appeals, Appellants A.H., K.H., and C.G. (collectively Appellants) appeal from the order denying their petitions for relief filed pursuant to the Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA). We affirm.
The underlying facts of this case are thoroughly summarized in the November 28, 2012 opinion of the PCRA court. See PCRA Court Opinion, 11/28/2012, at 2-7. In that opinion, the PCRA court concluded that Appellants were not entitled to relief, and denied their petitions. Appellants filed timely notices of appeal, and Appellants and the PCRA court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
On appeal, Appellants set forth the following eight questions for review.
I. Whether the PCRA Court's decision is not supported by the record and is not free from legal error because the credible evidence including the testimony of J.G. and Nova Representative Karen Bringhurst proves that the prosecutor coached the child witness, took no prophylactic measures to ensure the testimony of the child witness was not tainted by third parties, all of which induced the child to give false testimony, and deprived Appellants of the Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of law and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel free from interference by the prosecution?
II. Whether the PCRA Court's analysis of the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel is contrary to Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) because it did not consider the totality of the evidence including all of the new evidence and then determine the probable impact of the new evidence on a properly instructed jury?
III. Whether trial counsel were ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the warrantless search and seizure of J.G.?
IV. Whether trial counsel were ineffective for failing to challenge the prosecution on the grounds that it was motivated by racial and religious discrimination?
V. Whether trial counsel were ineffective for failing to file a motion to strike the jury who collectively expressed disapproval of corporal punishment?
VI. Whether trial counsel were ineffective for failing to object to the vital interest charge?
VII. Whether trial counsel were ineffective for not objecting to the prosecution on the grounds that 18 ...