Appeal from the PCRA Order of April 8, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-04-CR-0000525-2001
BEFORE: PANELLA, OLSON AND WECHT, JJ.
Appellant, Joseph Shegog, appeals from the order entered on April 8, 2013, denying relief on his petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541–9546. We affirm.
The PCRA court briefly summarized the facts and procedural history of this case as follows:
[Appellant] was charged with the December 24, 2000 homicide of Joseph Anderson and was found guilty of [m]urder in the [f]irst[-d]egree following a jury trial in December of 2005. [Appellant] was then sentenced to life imprisonment on January 11, 2006. On or about December 3, 2010, [Appellant] filed a [p]ro [s]e PCRA [p]etition alleging [six] grounds for relief. On April 13, 2012, counsel for [Appellant] filed a [s]upplemental PCRA [p]etition alleging [six] additional grounds for relief. A hearing on [Appellant's] PCRA [p]etition was held September 17, 2012.
[Appellant] also filed a separate [p]ro [s]e [p]etition on August 28, 2012 [within 60 days of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012).
PCRA Court Opinion, 4/8/2013, at *1. The PCRA court denied relief by order and opinion entered on April 8, 2013. This timely appeal resulted.
On appeal, Appellant raises the following issues for our consideration:
1. Was  there a conflict of interest in Attorney Benyo representing [Appellant]. Neither [Appellant] nor anyone in his family hired Benyo, Benyo was paid by a Terrell Lindsey to get [Appellant] to lie and say that Terrell Lindsey was responsible for [Appellant] turning himself into authorities so that Lindsey would get some consideration at his sentencing in federal court. Benyo's loyalties were compromised.
2. Was [Appellant] denied his right to a public trial and counsel for [Appellant] was ineffective for not objecting to said procedure where part of the jury selection was closed to the public as well as to [Appellant's] family.
3. Was trial counsel ineffective for not consulting with [Appellant] about the defense of the case [and] for not developing a trial strategy based upon the facts and evidence of the case.
4. Was trial counsel ineffective where he did not conduct an independent investigation of the facts and evidence which would have led him to pursue a case of self[-] defense where the victim had a gun at the time of the incident and was known as an ...