United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Bethann R. Lloyd, Esquire
R. McLean, Esquire
P. Pellis, Esquire
L. Friedline, Esquire
Stewart Cercone United States District Judge.
David Munchinski (“Munchinski” or
“Plaintiff”), filed a two count Amended Complaint
against Defendants, Gerald Solomon (“Solomon”),
Ralph Warman (“Warman”), John Kopas, III
(“Kopas”), and Dana L. Fayock, Executrix of the
Estate of George Fayock “Fayock”)(collectively
“Defendants”), asserting claims under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 alleging violation of his rights under the Sixth
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution
at Count I and a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
malicious prosecution at Count II. Solomon, Warman and Kopas
were prosecutors for the Fayette County District
Attorney's Office during the times relevant to this
action, and George Fayock (“Fayock) was an employee of
the Pennsylvania State Police. Motions for Summary Judgment
have been filed on behalf of all the Defendants and on behalf
of Munchinski. Responses to the motions have been filed and
the motions are now before the Court.
Statement of the Case
about December 2, 1977, two (2) men, James P. Alford
(“Alford') and Raymond Gierke
(“Gierke”) were sexually assaulted and murdered
in Bear Rocks, Fayette County, Pennsylvania. Solomon &
Warman Concise Statement of Material Facts (“S & W
CSMF”) ¶ 1. Trooper Montgomery Goodwin
(“Goodwin”) of the Pennsylvania State Police was
the lead investigator on the Alford/Gierke homicide case.
Fayock Concise Statement of Material Fact (“F
CSMF”) ¶ 2. Over the next several years, the State
Police interviewed more than one hundred individuals and
pursued numerous leads without success. F CSMF ¶ 4.
name surfaced as a suspect in the murders in January 1978,
when several witnesses reported that Munchinski confessed to
the murders at the Five Points Bar in Greensburg,
Pennsylvania. F CSMF ¶ 5. Goodwin interviewed Munchinski
and Leon Scaglione (“Scaglione”) on February 8,
1978 in the Westmoreland County Prison. F CSMF ¶ 7.
Munchinski denied involvement and offered assistance if
Goodwin would help him with certain charges filed against
him. F CSMF ¶ 8.
24, 1979, Goodwin and Corporal Mangiacarne
(“Mangiacarne”) interviewed Richard Bowen
(“Bowen”), who was incarcerated in Greensburg. F
CSMF ¶ 9. Bowen told the State Police that Scaglione had
admitted shooting Alford and Gierke in Bear Rocks. F CSMF
¶ 10. On September 9, 1982, Goodwin, accompanied by
Corporal Bernard Gorman (“Gorman”) of the
Pennsylvania State Police, interviewed Bowen at the Monaca
Police Department. F CSMF ¶ 11; S & W CSMF ¶
14. Goodwin had Bowen sign a waiver of rights prior to the
interview. Joint Appendix Solomon/Warman (“JA”)
Ex. 4; Munchinski Appendix [ECF No. 150], (“Munch.
App.”) Exhibit C, p. 119. During the interview, Bowen
told Goodwin that he drove Munchinski and Scaglione to the
cabin in Bear Rocks, and waited in the car while Munchinski
and Scaglione went inside. F CSMF ¶¶ 12 & 13;
JA Ex.4. Bowen told Goodwin that he heard gun shots,
Munchinski and Scaglione ran from the cabin, and they drove
back to Greensburg. F CSMF ¶ 13; JA Ex. 4. Bowen also
stated that he read about the killings the next day, and he
went to Oklahoma to stay with his father. Id.
Bowen told Goodwin he would testify if he was given immunity.
JA Ex. 4.
agreed to go with Goodwin and Gorman to the Fayette County
Courthouse and furnish a statement to District Attorney
Solomon. F CSMF ¶ 15; JA Ex. 4. Solomon testified that
the purpose of the meeting was to interview Bowen to
determine “if, in fact, [Bowen] had information
relative to [the Alford/Gierke] homicides.” Munchinski
Appendix [ECF. 139] (“M. App.”) Ex. 12 p. 120.
Bowen signed a waiver of rights and was interviewed by
Solomon and Assistant District Attorney Warman. F CSMF ¶
16; JA Ex. 4. Gorman, Fayock, and Goodwin, all from the
Pennsylvania State Police, were also present during the
interview. Id. Bowen provided a statement, which
Goodwin indicated was recorded and was to be transcribed by
the DA's office. JA Ex. 4.
October 21, 1982, Goodwin, Gorman and Mangiacarne appeared
with Bowen in Solomon's office, and Bowen gave another
statement which, unlike the previous statement he gave in
September, indicated that he was in the cabin and witnessed
the sexual assaults and the shootings of Alford and Gierke.
JA Ex.6. The statement was taped and transcribed. F CSMF
¶ 21. Based upon Bowen's statement, Goodwin prepared
an Affidavit of Probable Cause, and signed and filed the
criminal complaint against Munchinski.
October 22, 1982, Munchinski and Scaglione were arrested and
charged with two (2) counts of Criminal Homicide and two (2)
counts of Criminal Conspiracy to commit homicide.
Munchinski v. Wilson, 807 F.Supp.2d 242, 250 (W.D.
Pa. 2011). Munchinski and Scaglione were jointly tried in
April of 1983. Id. There was no physical evidence
linking either individual to the crimes. Instead, the
Commonwealth relied heavily on the testimony of Bowen, who,
as stated above, claimed to have been an eyewitness to the
murders, and whose testimony alone placed Munchinski at the
scene of the crimes. Id. Specifically, Bowen
testified that Gierke and Alford were raped by Scaglione and
Munchinski, respectively, and that the two victims were
murdered almost immediately thereafter. Munchinski v.
Wilson, 694 F.3d 308, 315 (3d Cir. 2012). Bowen's
trial testimony, however, was markedly different from the
statements he gave police when he first approached them as a
potential witness. Id. Bowen's testimony was
also at odds with certain facts that were elicited at trial.
For example, Bowen claimed that he drove Scaglione and
Munchinski to the site of the murders in Scaglione's lime
green Ford Gran Torino. Id. Scaglione, however, did
not purchase that Gran Torino until almost six months after
the murders. Id.
prosecution also presented Lori Lexa (“Lexa”) and
Deborah Sue Dahlmann (“Dahlmann”) who testified
that Munchinski and Scaglione confessed to murdering Alford
and Gierke while at the Five Points Bar in Greensburg on
January 28, 1978. Munchinski v. Wilson, 807
F.Supp.2d at 250; S & W CSMF ¶ 4. Lexa and Dahlmann
were friends prior to their involvement in the case, and
Dahlmann's ex-husband, Ed Wiltrout, was a prime suspect
in the murders of Alford and Gierke. Munchinski v.
Wilson, 694 F.3d at 315. At that time, however,
Munchinski was unaware that a witness told police that
Wiltrout was one of the shooters. Id. Munchinski was
unable to cross-examine Dahlmann with the witness statement
implicating Wiltrout because the report documenting that
statement had not been produced. Id. The joint trial
ended in a hung jury, and a mistrial was declared.
October 31, 1983, upon the filing of a “Petition to
View Evidence” on behalf of Munchinski and Scaglione,
the Honorable Richard D. Cicchetti “ordered and
counsel for the defendants, and the defendant, David Joseph
Munchinski be permitted to examine, inspect, photograph and
make record notes of all evidence that the Office of the
District Attorney and/or the Pennsylvania State Police or
their agents, may have in their possession or that they may
acquire, that relates to the above captioned cases.
Ex. 5. Despite Judge Cicchetti's order, Munchinski
contends that following exculpatory evidence was withheld:
(1) Police reports showing that Bowen, the purported
eyewitness and get-away driver, was in Oklahoma on the night
of the murders;
(2) A police report showing that an individual named Mike
Urdzick had confessed with specificity to murdering the
victims with an accomplice, Edgar Wiltrout;
(3) A police report by Pennsylvania State Trooper Montgomery
Goodwin which contradicted Bowen regarding the timing of the
anal rape of the victims;
(4) A report memorializing a conversation with a deputy
coroner that contradicted Bowen's account of the anal
rape of the victims;
(5) A one (1) page addendum to the autopsy report that was
exculpatory on its face;
(6) A police report showing the existence of nail scrapings
which could have been tested;
(7) Information on the leniency Defendants allegedly offered
Bowen in exchange for his testimony;
(8) A police report regarding a conversation between one of
the victims and a telephone operator, which contradicted
Bowen's eyewitness account;
(9) A police report indicating the involvement of an
individual named Robert Mangello in the murders;
(10) A police report of indicating the involvement of an
individual named Joseph Lucy in the murders;
(11) A police report by Trooper Goodwin regarding Bowen's
first statement provided to law enforcement; and
(12) The content of Bowen's tape recorded statement made
on September 9, 1982. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 33, 34.
October 1986, the Commonwealth retried Scaglione. During his
trial, Scaglione admitted to committing the murders.
Scaglione testified that Munchinski had no involvement in the
murders, but that Scaglione had committed the crimes with an
associate named Homer Stewart who allegedly resembled
Munchinski. Munchinski v. Wilson, 694 F.3d at 315.
Scaglione was convicted of two counts of first degree
homicide and two counts of second degree homicide.
Commonwealth retried Munchinski in November of 1986.
Id. With no physical evidence, the Commonwealth
again presented the testimony of Bowen, Lexa, and Dahlmann,
and also offered the testimony of Bernard Furr, another
acquaintance of Dahlmann's, who testified regarding an
alleged confession to the murders by Munchinski in January
1978, and the testimony of Harold Thomas, who testified that
Munchinski confessed while in jail in 1983. Munchinski v.
Wilson, 694 F.3d at 316. In his case, Munchinski sought
to introduce Scaglione's testimony from his retrial, in
which he implicated Stewart in the murders and exonerated
Munchinski. Scaglione, however, refused to testify, invoking
his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
Id. The trial court denied Munchinski's request
that Scaglione be granted use immunity, and also ruled that
Scaglione's prior testimony was inadmissible under
Pennsylvania law. Id. Munchinski, therefore, was
unable to introduce any exculpatory testimony from Scaglione.
closing argument to the jury, Warman stated: “did you
hear anyone testify that Bowen received anything other than
immunity? No . . . does that bolster his testimony to
indicate that Bowen was there?” Munchinski v.
Wilson, 694 F.3d at 316. The Third Circuit found that
Warman's argument “misled the jury” because
prosecutors in Fayette County had reached a leniency
agreement with Bowen, whereby Westmoreland County prosecutors
would be lenient towards Bowen in his ongoing parole
revocation hearings in exchange for Bowen's testimony
against Munchinski. Id. In addition, the prosecutors
failed to turn over the documents evidencing this leniency
agreement to Munchinski. Id. Munchinski was found
guilty of first-degree homicide and, on June 15, 1987, he was
sentenced to two consecutive life sentences. Id. The
Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the judgment of
sentence on November 13, 1991. Id.
was elected to the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County,
Pennsylvania in November of 1987, and did not represent the
Commonwealth thereafter. S & W CSMF ¶ 99.
November 1991, Bowen, who was imprisoned in Oklahoma at the
time, asked to speak with the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(the “FBI”) with regard to the murders of Alford
and Gierke. Munchinski v. Wilson, 694 F.3d at 316.
Bowen was interviewed in prison by FBI Special Agent Matthew
Schenk. Id.; M. App. Ex. 11. During the interview,
Bowen recanted his trial testimony, stating, inter
alia, that: (1) he was not involved in any fashion with
Scaglione or Munchinski in the killings of Alford and Gierke;
(2) he was told what his testimony would be by Troopers
Goodwin and Gorman, and District Attorney Solomon; (3) he was
provided a fictitious script as to what he was to testify to
during the trial for the killings of Alford and Gierke; (3)
he was given money, assistance with certain legal problems,
and was promised a $10, 000 reward posted by the victims'
parents in exchange for his cooperation and testimony; and
(4) Goodwin told Bowen that if he did not testify against
Scaglione and Munchinski, Goodwin would get someone to
testify against him for the murders. M. App. Ex. 11.
Munchinski became aware of Bowen's recantation to Special
Agent Schneck, he arranged to depose Bowen. Munchinski v.
Wilson, 694 F.3d at 316; M. App. Ex. 20. On April 4,
1992, Bowen testified that he did not meet Munchinski until
1978 when they were serving time in jail in Westmoreland
County. M. App. Ex. 20, p. 7. Bowen further testified that on
the day Alford and Gierke were killed, he was at his
father's house in Okmulgee, Oklahoma. M. App. Ex. 20, p.
9. Bowen further stated that Scaglione did in fact admit to
the murders of Alford and Gierke, but that Scaglione never
mentioned Munchinski. M. App. Ex. 20, p. 21. Bowen testified
that Goodwin said he would be charged with murder if he did
not testify based upon a narrative given to him by Goodwin.
M. App. Ex. 20, p. 23-24. According to Bowen, Solomon also
knew he did not witness the murders, but insisted he testify
that he did in fact witness the murders. M. App. Ex. 20, p.
filed his first petition for relief under the Pennsylvania
Post-Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa. Cons.
Stat. Ann. § 9541, et seq. (“PCRA I”) on
April 16, 1992. The PCRA I petition sought relief based on
two articles of newly-discovered evidence: (1) a September
1982 report from Trooper Goodwin (the “Goodwin
Report”) that was intentionally edited to conceal a
reference to a recorded statement made by Bowen; and (2)
Bowen's sworn deposition testimony. Munchinski v.
Wilson, 694 F.3d at 317. Munchinski's PCRA I was
assigned to Judge William J. Franks of the Court of Common
Pleas of Fayette County. Id.
Franks held an evidentiary hearing during which Warman
admitted that he intentionally edited the Goodwin Report,
removing a paragraph which indicated that Bowen made a
statement in Solomon's office on that date, which was
then recorded for future transcription, and that Bowen had
signed a waiver of rights. Munchinski v. Wilson, 694
F.3d at 318; Munchinski v. Wilson, 807 F.Supp.2d
242, 253 (W.D. Pa. 2011); M. App. Exs. 13 & 18. Warman
intentionally removed the paragraph and pasted together the
surrounding paragraphs in such a manner as to conceal the
removal. Munchinski v. Wilson, 807 F.Supp.2d at 253.
Warman testified that he removed the paragraph because,
according to him, no statement was actually recorded or
transcribed and the reference would be
“misleading.” Munchinski v. Wilson, 694
F.3d at 318; Munchinski v. Wilson, 807 F.Supp.2d at
253. Solomon also testified and corroborated Warman's
testimony. Id.; Munchinski v. Wilson, 807
F.Supp.2d at 253-254.
Judge Franks concluded that no recording had been made of
Bowen's statement on September 9, 1982, he ordered the
Commonwealth to produce all Pennsylvania State Police
investigation files related to the murders of Alford and
Gierke, as well as three additional files on Bowen, for an
in camera review based upon Warman's admission
that he modified the Goodwin Report. Id.;
Munchinski v. Wilson, 807 F.Supp.2d at 254. Judge
Franks reviewed the files, and ordered that everything he
deemed to be discoverable be produced to Munchinski.
Munchinski v. Wilson, 807 F.Supp.2d at 254. Judge
Franks found that none of the documents that had been
produced as part of Bowen's files were discoverable.
on Bowen's statement to the FBI and subsequent
deposition, Munchinski called Bowen to testify at his PCRA I
hearing and recant his trial testimony. Munchinski v.
Wilson, 694 F.3d at 318. Bowen invoked his Fifth
Amendment right against self-incrimination, and Judge Franks
granted Bowen use immunity for his testimony. Id.
Bowen, however, disavowed his deposition testimony and
reaffirmed his testimony from the 1986 retrial. Id.
Bowen subsequently committed suicide while incarcerated in
Oklahoma. Munchinski v. Wilson, 807 F.Supp.2d at
Knight (“Knight”), an acquaintance of Bowen's
from prison, was also called to testify at the PCRA I
hearing. Munchinski v. Wilson, 694 F.3d at 319.
Knight testified that he introduced Bowen to Scaglione and
Munchinski in March 1978, long after the December 1977
murders of Alford and Gierke, when they were incarcerated
together in Westmoreland County Jail. Id. Knight
further testified that Bowen admitted that he was in Oklahoma
at the time of the murders, and that he lied under oath
during the murder trials. Id.
August 5, 1993, Judge Franks dismissed Munchinski's PCRA
I petition, and on December 11, 1995, the Pennsylvania
Superior Court affirmed Judge Franks' dismissal.
became a judge in the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette
County, Pennsylvania in 1996, and did not represent the
Commonwealth in the Munchinski case thereafter. S & W
CSMF ¶ 125.
March 21, 2001, Munchinski filed his third PCRA
petition (the “PCRA III” petition). S
& W CSMF ¶ 126; Munchinski v. Wilson, 694
F.3d at 320. Because Solomon and Warman were now sitting
judges of the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County, the
remaining judges of the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette
County recused themselves from the matter. Munchinski v.
Wilson, 694 F.3d at 320. The Administrative Office of
Pennsylvania Courts assigned the PCRA III Petition to Judge
Barry Feudale of the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland
PCRA III petition, Munchinski alleged that eleven (11) pieces
of exculpatory evidence were unlawfully suppressed by the
prosecution during his homicide trials in 1983 and 1986, and
during his first PCRA proceedings. Munchinski v.
Wilson, 807 F.Supp.2d 255. The District Court identified
the alleged exculpatory evidence as follows:
(1) The Bates report: a one-page report of trooper George F.
Bates, dated January 6, 1978, relating an interview with
Maria Caccia, who indicated that Bowen had left Pennsylvania
for Oklahoma on December 1, 1977.
(2) The Goodwin/Powell report: a report, dated December 20,
1977, written by Goodwin. In this report, Goodwin indicated
that Deputy Coroner Jack Powell informed him that it was
believed that the anal intercourse to which Alford was
subjected would have taken place 24 hours prior to his death.
(3) The Powell addendum: a typewritten summary of a phone
call, attributed to Fayette County Deputy Coroner Jack
Powell, dated December 14, 1977, indicating that the anal
intercourse to which Alford was subjected possibly occurred
“at least 24 hours” before his death.
(4) The addendum to Alford's autopsy: a one-page addendum
to Alford's autopsy report, dated December 17, 1977 and
signed by Dr. Sava, indicating that the medical samples taken
from Alford's rectum were of blood group “A”.
[Munchinski] avers, and the Superior Court concluded, that
[his] blood group is “B”. Dr. Sava noted in this
report that contamination of the samples by the contents of
Alford's own urethra “[could not] be entirely ruled
(5) The Mangiacarne/Carbone report: a report written by
Corporal Mangiacarne, dated December 16, 1980, relating his
interview of an individual named Elizabeth Carbone
(“Carbone”). According to this report, Carbone
described a detailed confession to the murders [of Alford and
Gierke], given to her by an individual named Mike Urdzik
(“Urdzik”). In this confession, Urdzik implicated
one Ed Wiltrout (“Wiltrout”) in the [Alford and
(6) The Kinch report: a report written by Trooper Robert
Kinch, dated December 19, 1977, which indicated that certain
biological evidence, including nail scrapings, had been taken
from Alford. The existence of this evidence was unknown to
[Munchinski] until the report's discovery, sometime
during the pendency of his first habeas appeal.
(7) Bowen's parole revocation documents: four pages of
documents from Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, related to
parole revocation hearings for Bowen in 1983. [Munchinski]
argues that multiple passages in these documents support the
conclusion that an undisclosed agreement for leniency existed
between Bowen, the Westmoreland County District
Attorney's office, and the Fayette County District
Attorney's office. Examples of these passages include:
“[t]he Actor [Bowen] is present [sic] [in] a situation
which could solve his charges. . . “, and “[t]his
petition was not filed before this date at the request of
[then Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, ] D.A. John J.
Driscoll because of [Bowen's] role as a witness in a
murder trial Fayette County.”
(8) The Dunkard/Proud report: a report written by Trooper
Edward Dunkard (“Dunkard”), dated December 5,
1977, indicating that Delores Proud (“Proud”),
then a dispatcher for the Mt. Pleasant, Pennsylvania, Police
Department, received a call at 2:32 A.M. on December 2, 1977,
from a telephone operator, who stated, “[a] man said he
was shot and lives at 837 Alpine Rd., in Bear Rocks.”
The report also indicates that Proud received a call about
eighteen minutes later requesting an ambulance from Bonnie
Blackson, the woman who discovered Alford's body on her
(9) The Veil/Mangello report: a one page report written by
Trooper Richard Veil (“Veil”), dated June 23,
1986, in which inmate Robert Lee Mangello
(“Mangello”) indicated that Joseph Lucy
(“Lucy”), [Munchinski's] criminal
co-defendant Scaglione, and a third, unnamed man, committed
the murders [of Alford and Gierke] at Bear Rocks in
“1972-1973”. The record indicates that this
document came into [Munchinski's] possession on March 10,
2003, during discovery for his third PCRA proceedings.
(10) The Madden/Lucy report: the October 15, 1986, report of
Trooper William F. Madden (“Madden”), in which
Lucy denied Mangello's accusations. However, Lucy went on
to say that Mangello had indicated that he was a witness to
the shootings at Bear Rocks himself. The record indicates
that this document came into [Munchinski's] possession on
March 10, 2003, during discovery for his third PCRA
(11) The marked Bates report: a second copy of the
above-mentioned “Bates report, ” received during
the course of discovery on March 10, 2003. [Munchinski]
argues that, due to the markings made on the report, which
emphasize, inter alia, the passage “and BOWEN
left on the 1st of December, ” this exhibit is
materially different from the unmarked version that had been
discovered earlier. [Munchinski] avers that this version of
the Bates report was marked in this manner when he received
it, and argues that this bolsters his contention that
prosecutors knew of the exculpatory information
(i.e., that Bowen was in transit to Oklahoma) at the
time of the murders [of Alford and Gierke] on December 2,
Munchinski v. Wilson, 807 F.Supp.2d 255-256
(internal citations omitted).
Feudale held several days of hearings on the PCRA III
petition. Judge Franks, who had presided over
Munchinski's PCRA I petition, testified at the PCRA III
hearing and stated that had he been aware of the Bates
Report, the Goodwin/Powell Report, and the
Mangiacarne/Carbone Report, which were withheld from his
in camera review by the prosecution, he may well
have granted relief on Munchinski's PCRA I petition.
Munchinski v. Wilson, 694 F.3d at 321-322.
Feudale also examined evidence indicating that a tape
recording had been made of a statement that was taken from
Bowen on September 9, 1982, which had never been produced to
Munchinski. Munchinski v. Wilson, 807 F.Supp.2d at
257. This evidence included a police report written by
Goodwin on September 9 or 10, 1982, as well as the testimony
of Warman and Goodwin with regard to the recorded statement
referenced therein. Unlike the PCRA I court, Judge Feudale
held that Munchinski had demonstrated by a preponderance of
the evidence that a tape of this statement existed and was
improperly concealed and withheld by the Commonwealth.
Id.; see also Munchinski v. Wilson, 694
F.3d at 322.
October 1, 2004, Judge Feudale filed a 114-page opinion
analyzing the merits of the PCRA III petition and concluding
(1) Despite the PCRA I Court's conclusion to the
contrary, the recorded statement referred to in the omitted
paragraph of the Goodwin Report did exist, and was
intentionally withheld by prosecutors;
(2) Even if no recorded statement existed, Warman's
intentional editing of the Goodwin Report violated Brady
v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963);
(3) Prosecutorial misconduct in violation of Brady
occurred when, despite Judge Franks Order during the PCRA I
proceedings, the entire police file was not turned over for
in camera review;
(4) Solomon and Warman both committed prosecutorial
misconduct and numerous Brady violations leading up
to and during the Munchinski's first trial and his
(5) Warman intentionally misled the jury during the retrial
when he stated that all Bowen received in exchange for his
testimony was immunity, because he was aware that Bowen also
received leniency as to a number of probation and parole
violations in Westmoreland County.
Munchinski v. Wilson, 694 F.3d at 323. The PCRA III
court found that the evidence withheld by prosecutors was
material under Brady, granted Munchinski's
petition and vacated his 1986 convictions. The court
concluded that Warman and Solomon engaged in serious and
intentional prosecutorial misconduct. Id.
October 8, 2004, the Commonwealth appealed Judge
Feudale's ruling, and on December 14, 2005, the Superior
Court of Pennsylvania issued a nonprecedential and unsigned
memorandum opinion reversing the PCRA III court. In its
review of the Superior Court's reversal, the United