Appeal from the PCRA Order of July 24, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-1110192-2002 and CP-51-CR-1110202-2002.
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., OLSON AND PLATT, [*] JJ.
Appellant, Raheem Revell, appeals from the order entered on July 24, 2012 dismissing his petition filed under the Post-Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
The PCRA court summarized the factual and procedural background of this case as follows:
[Appellant] was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder,  one count of attempted murder,  criminal conspiracy,  and weapons offenses following a jury trial before the Honorable John J. Poserina . . . that took place in June 2005. Following a penalty hearing at which the jury indicated that it was unable to reach a unanimous decision, the penalty was fixed at life imprisonment. On September 13, 2005, [the trial court] imposed consecutive life sentences on the first[-]degree murder convictions. The [trial court] also imposed sentences of seven to  years' incarceration on the conspiracy and attempted murder charges, which sentences [it] ordered to run concurrently with one another but consecutive to the life sentences. [The trial court] entered verdicts without further penalties on the remaining charges.
The charges filed against [Appellant] arose out of an incident that occurred on May 7, 2002, during which [Appellant] fired a handgun into a group of individuals standing near Broad Street and Fairmount Avenue in Philadelphia. Two individuals died as a result of the incident and another suffered serious injury. Apparently, the shooting stemmed from an altercation that occurred a week earlier.
Following the imposition of sentence, [Appellant] appealed to [this] Court, which on September 22, 2008, affirmed the judgment of sentence. Commonwealth v. Revel, 963 A.2d 571 (Pa. Super. 2008) (unpublished memorandum). [Appellant] did not file a petition for allowance of appeal.
On September 9, 2009, [Appellant] filed a counseled PCRA petition wherein he alleged prosecutorial misconduct. Subsequent thereto, on September 15, 2009, [Appellant] filed an amendment to his original petition wherein he accused trial counsel of being ineffective for failing to properly investigate a recording of numerous telephone conversations engaged in by [Appellant] while he was incarcerated [and] awaiting trial. On July 24, 2012, having previously sent [Appellant] a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice, [the PCRA c]ourt issued an order denying [Appellant] PCRA relief without a hearing. However, [Appellant]'s counsel never received a copy of the order and did not file an appeal. On May 10, 2013, after th[e PCRA c]ourt was advised that counsel failed to receive notification of the order denying [Appellant] PCRA relief, th[e PCRA c]ourt issued an order granting [Appellant] the right to file a notice of appeal nunc pro tunc from the order denying him PCRA relief.
PCRA Court Opinion, 6/25/13, at 1-2 (footnotes omitted). This timely appeal followed.
Appellant presents two issues for our review:
1. Did the [PCRA c]ourt violate Appellant's rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments [to the United States Constitution] by finding that his trial/direct appellate counsel w[ere] not constitutionally ineffective for waiving a claim that the prosecutor committed misconduct during her closing argument; or alternatively, [PCRA c]ounsel was ineffective for failing to properly assert and preserve a claim that trial/direct appeals counsel were ineffective under the Sixth Amendment for waiving the claim that the prosecutor committed misconduct during her closing argument thereby denying Appellant his right to due process and a fair trial?
2. Did the [PCRA c]ourt deny Appellant his 14th Amendment due process rights and abuse its discretion in dismissing Appellant's counseled claims as meritless ...