Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

[U] Commonwealth v. Ginnery

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

February 3, 2014

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee
v.
OWEN E. GINNERY, SR. Appellant

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

Appeal from the PCRA Order December 28, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Venango County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-61-CR-0000253-2009

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., GANTMAN, J., and SHOGAN, J.

MEMORANDUM

GANTMAN, J.

Appellant, Owen E. Ginnery, Sr., appeals from the order entered in the Venango County Court of Common Pleas, which dismissed his first petition brought pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA").[1] We affirm.

In its opinion, the PCRA court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them .

Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

WHETHER THE PCRA COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW OR ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DETERMINING THAT COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO FILE TO SUPPRESS THE EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE UNLAWFUL ENTRY OF [APPELLANT'S CAMPER] WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT.
WHETHER THE PCRA COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW OR ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DETERMINING THAT COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING [TO PERFORM] A PRETRIAL INVESTIGATION BY INTERVIEWING [WAYNE L. HEPLER], VIEWING THE TRAILERS, ACQUIRING THE ADDRESS LISTED AT THE POST OFFICE, ACQUIR[ING] [APPELLANT'S] MEGAN['S] LAW FOLDER FROM THE STATE POLICE, AND SEEK[ING] DISCOVERY OF THE COMMONWEALTH'S WITNESSES.
WHETHER THE PCRA COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW OR ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DETERMINING THAT COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL WHEN THE ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY SHOUTED THAT [APPELLANT] WAS A RAPIST BEFORE THE TRIAL BEGAN AND IN FRONT [OF] THE WITNESSES.
WHETHER THE PCRA COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW OR ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DETERMINING THAT COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO USING THE GUIDELINES FOR THE TIME TO REPORT UNDER MEGAN['S] LAW III WHEN MEGAN['S] LAW II WAS THE APPROPRIATE STATUTE. SEE COMMONWEALTH V. BENNER, 853 A.2D. 1068 (PA.SUPER. 2004).
WHETHER THE PCRA COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW OR ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DETERMINING THAT COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING DURING TRIAL, TO CROSS [EXAMINE] WITNESSES ON THEIR BIAS, [AND TO OBJECT] TO THE PHOTOGRAPHS INTRODUCED DURING TRIAL THAT WERE NOT TURNED OVER DURING DISCOVERY[ .]

(Appellant's Brief at 5-6).

Our standard of review for the denial of a PCRA petition is limited to examining whether the evidence of record supports the court's determination and whether its decision is free of legal error. Commonwealth v. Conway, 14 A.3d 101 (Pa.Super. 2011), appeal denied, 612 Pa. 687, 29 A.3d 795 (2011). This Court grants great deference to the findings of the PCRA court if the record contains any support for those findings; however, we give no deference to the court's legal conclusions. Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190, 1194 (Pa.Super. 2012). "Traditionally, issues of credibility are within the sole domain of the trier of fact [ because] it is the trier of fact who had the opportunity to personally observe the demeanor of the witnesses." Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 553 Pa. 485, 527, 720 A.2d 79, 99 (1998), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 810, 120 S.Ct. 41, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.