Jump To

Top Caption [Combined Opinion

                  by Beck](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10806233/com-v-dunkowski-c/about:blank#o1)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 9, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Com. v. Dunkowski, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1220 EDA 2025
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Judges: Beck

• Opinion

• Authorities (28)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (3.2K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

                        by Beck

J-S47003-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
ALBERT DUNKOWSKI :
:
Appellant : No. 1507 EDA 2025

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered May 14, 2025
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-09-CR-0000225-2020

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., OLSON, J., and BECK, J.

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.E.: FILED MARCH 9, 2026

Albert Dunkowski appeals pro se from the order of the Court of Common

Pleas of Bucks County dismissing his petition filed pursuant to the Post-

Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”)1, without a hearing. Dunkowski argues that he

is entitled to relief on his claims of sufficiency of the evidence and ineffective

assistance of counsel. After careful review, we affirm the PCRA court’s order

dismissing his PCRA petition. However, for the first time on appeal, Dunkowski

argues his sentence was illegal because the sentencing court failed to consider

his recidivism risk reduction incentive (“RRRI”)2 eligibility. He is entitled to

relief on this claim. Therefore, we affirm the order dismissing the PCRA petition

and remand for the sentencing court to consider his RRRI eligibility.

---

1 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541–9546.

2 61 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 4501–4512.
J-S47003-25

This Court previously summarized the facts related to Dunkowski’s

underlying convictions. See Commonwealth v. Dunkowski, No. 1047 EDA

2022, 2023 WL 5129187 (Pa. Super. filed Aug. 10, 2023) (unpublished

memorandum).

In August 2019, police discovered Dunkowski and his wife
inhabiting an automobile that was parked in the lot of the
Woodbourn Train Station in Middletown Township. Upon arriving
at the scene, officers observed Dunkowski lying face down in the
grass. His wife was slumped over in the front passenger seat. Four
children occupied the rear seat area of the vehicle. A cat was also
living in the car. Officers noted that the vehicle was cluttered with
trash, clothing, food, and debris. They also noticed the strong odor
of bodily excretions, cigarettes, and rotting food. Due to the visibly
poor physical condition of the children, the officers called
Emergency Medical Services (“EMS”). EMS took protective
custody of the children and transported them to the hospital.

The trial court offered the following review of the condition of the
various children that were in the parental care of Dunkowski and
his wife:

At [the hospital], treating physicians made the
following assessments: N.D., who suffered from
cerebral palsy, was thirteen years old and weighed
about ninety pounds. She was nonverbal, had a
feeding tube, and started to develop bedsores from
remaining in the same position for a significant
amount of time. J.D. was four years old and weighed
about forty pounds. She was still in diapers as she was
not yet trained to go to the bathroom on her own and
she needed extensive dental work—a root canal, a
crown, and three fillings. Female L.D. was five years
old and weighed about forty-eight pounds. She was
also still in diapers and needed nine root canals, nine
crowns, one filling, and four teeth pulled. She had
never been to school. Male L.D. was nine years old
and weighed about sixty pounds. He had bilateral
clubfeet ... as well as undescended testicles .... Both
required procedures—several to improve Male L.D.’s
clubfeet and one to surgically descend his testicles.

-2-
J-S47003-25

Male L.D. also had such a severe, significant amount
of dried, caked-on fecal matter on his diaper that
when the doctor pulled it back, Male L.D.’s skin
became raw and red. Dr. Torradas, the physician who
treated the children, testified that, over the course of
his lengthy career, he had never seen anything like
what he saw on August 27, 2019.

That same day, [Dunkowski] and [his wife] spoke with
Detective Brian Hyams (hereinafter “Detective
Hyams”) and told him that none of the four children
found were enrolled in school. Detective Hyams asked
if they had any additional children and they provided
the names of three more minors in their care. They
relayed that one child, R.[D]., was staying with a
friend at the time, but neither [Dunkowski] nor [his
wife] could provide any contact information to get in
touch with her. Authorities eventually found R.[D].
and discovered that she missed almost the entire
2018-2019 school year and had an abscess in her
tooth that rendered her unable to chew and required
significant dental surgery. Fortunately, R.D did not
require immediate, emergency medical treatment.

Shortly thereafter, Detective Hyams discovered that
[Dunkowski] and [his wife] had an eighth minor
child—S.D.—they did not mention when previously
asked. After some investigation, Detective Hyams
located S.D. and [Dunkowski] agreed to “turn her
over” to authorities in a McDonald’s parking lot. S.D.
“appeared to be very thin, small, disheveled. Her hair
was very short as if it wasn't growing, or falling out.
Her eyes were puffy underneath. She was very, very
quiet, almost like she was lethargic.” Doctors later
determined she weighed about forty-two pounds. S.D.
was unable to walk because her legs were bent in a
seated position. She also still needed diapers—at
thirteen years old—because [Dunkowski] and [his
wife] never taught her how to use the bathroom.
Authorities immediately took protective custody of
S.D. and transported her to [the hospital] with the
other children.

-3-
J-S47003-25

Id. at **1-2 (quoting Trial Court Opinion, 6/23/22, at 2-4) (alterations in

original).

Dunkowski and his wife Christine were both charged with six counts of

endangering the welfare of children (“EWOC”).3 A consolidated jury trial

commenced on October 4, 2021. On the third day of trial, Dunkowski and his

wife failed to appear. The trial proceeded in abstentia. Dunkowski was

convicted of three counts of EWOC. For each count, he was sentenced to three

to seven years, consecutively, for an aggregate term of incarceration of 9 to

21 years.4 He filed a timely post-sentence motion which was denied.

Dunkowski filed a direct appeal, and this Court affirmed his judgment of

sentence. See Dunkowski, 2023 WL 5129187, at *8.

Thereafter,

On July 29, 2024, [Dunkowski] filed his first PCRA Petition, Th[e
PCRA c]ourt appointed Stuart Wilder, Esquire to represent
[Dunkowski], but on September 4, 2024, Mr. Wilder filed a Motion
to Allow [Dunkowski] to Represent Himself in his Petition for PCRA
Relief. The Petition stated that [Dunkowski] wished to represent
himself, and after a hearing on the matter where [Dunkowski]
advised th[e PCRA c]ourt of the same, th[e c]ourt granted
[Dunkowski’s] Motion on December 18, 2024.

---

3 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4304.

4 Dunkowski’s wife, Christine Dunkowski, was his co-defendant at trial. She

was convicted of the same charges and was sentenced to 8 to 21 years’
incarceration. Her conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. See
Commonwealth v. Dunkowski, No. 1990 EDA 2022, 2023 WL 4397323 (Pa.
Super. filed July 7, 2023) (unpublished memorandum). Her pro se appeal of
the denial of her first PCRA petition is pending at docket number 1220 EDA
2025.

-4-
J-S47003-25

On January 13, 2025, [Dunkowski] filed his pro se Amended
Petition for Post Conviction Collateral Relief, wherein he
challenged the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial and
alleged th[e sentencing c]ourt abused its discretion when
imposing sentence and that his trial counsel was ineffective for:
(1) not “moving for dismissal of the indictment” during said
sentencing; (2) not interviewing his children in preparation for
trial; and (3) not filing a successful direct appeal. On February 11,
2025, the Commonwealth filed its response to [Dunkowski’s]
Amended PCRA Petition. On February 24, 2025, th[e PCRA c]ourt
issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss Pursuant to Pa. R. Crim. P.
907 and stated that the claims were without merit and did not
warrant an evidentiary hearing. On March 11, 2025, [Dunkowski]
filed an Objection to Notice of Intent to Dismiss. On May 14, 2025,
th[e PCRA c]ourt formally dismissed [Dunkowski’s] pro se
Amended PCRA Petition. On June 2, 2025, [Dunkowski] filed [a]
Notice of Appeal to the Superior Court.

PCRA Court Opinion, 6/20/25, at 4-5.

Both Dunkowski and the PCRA court complied with Pennsylvania Rule of

Appellate Procedure 1925. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)-(b).

Dunkowski raises the following issues.

1. Did the Trial Court err in not correcting, at sentencing, the jury’s
   verdict, once the [c]ourt became aware that there was no intent
   by [Dunkowski] to commit the offenses charged?

2. Was [Dunkowski’s] trial counsel ineffective for not moving for
   a dismissal of the indictment and conviction due to the judge’s
   comments at sentencing?

3. Was Trial Counsel ineffective for failing to interview
   [Dunkowski’s] children at all, and thus was unprepared for trial
   without their version of events during their homeless period?

4. Was the term of confinement for Endangering the Welfare of
   Children illegal since the court failed to make a RRRI
   determination at the time of sentencing?

Appellant’s Brief, at 4 (brackets omitted).

-5-
J-S47003-25

“The standard of review of an order dismissing a PCRA petition is

whether that determination is supported by the evidence of record and is free

of legal error.” Commonwealth v. Williams, 244 A.3d 1281, 1286 (Pa.

Super. 2021).

The right to an evidentiary hearing on a post-conviction petition
is not absolute. It is within the PCRA court’s discretion to decline
to hold a hearing if the petitioner’s claim is patently frivolous and
has no support either in the record or other evidence. It is the
responsibility of the reviewing court on appeal to examine each
issue raised in the PCRA petition in light of the record certified
before it in order to determine if the PCRA court erred in its
determination that there were no genuine issues of material fact
in controversy and in denying relief without conducting an
evidentiary hearing.

Id. at 1287 (brackets and citation omitted).

In his first issue Dunkowski purports to raise a sufficiency of the

evidence challenge. Specifically, he argues that the Commonwealth failed to

establish that he intentionally neglected his children. See Appellant’s Brief, at

14-19. However, it is well-settled that a claim challenging the sufficiency of

the evidence is not cognizable under the PCRA. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543;

Commonwealth v. Mudge, No. 919 WDA 2021, 2022 WL 2813608, at *5

(Pa. Super. filed July 19, 2022) (unpublished memorandum) (“challenge to

sufficiency of evidence . . . is not cognizable under PCRA.”). 5 Moreover, it is

waived. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9544(b) (“an issue is waived if the petitioner could

---

5 Unpublished decisions filed after May 1, 2019 may be relied upon for their

persuasive value.

-6-
J-S47003-25

have raised it but failed to do so before trial, at trial, during unitary review,

on appeal or in a prior state postconviction proceeding.”). Therefore,

Dunkowski’s first issue does not merit relief.

Next, Dunkowski claims that counsel was ineffective for failing to seek

dismissal of his convictions because the evidence was insufficient. In support

of his claim that counsel had reason to seek dismissal, he points to the

sentencing court’s comment at sentencing, “[w]e know that you did not set

out to do this intentionally, at least I don’t think you did[,]” as indicative of

him lacking the requisite mens rea. See Appellant’s Brief, at 21; N.T., 2/7/22,

at 43. Additionally, he states appointed counsel was aware of email

correspondence between the prosecutor and Chief Deputy Public Defender

that Dunkowski claims indicates that they agreed to a mitigated sentence for

him, which proves his lack of culpability. See Appellant’s Brief, at 20-21.

Based on the foregoing, he argues his counsel was ineffective for failing to file

a motion to dismiss because the evidence was insufficient to prove his guilt.

See id. at 19-22.

Although sufficiency of the evidence challenges are not cognizable under

the PCRA, claims alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to raise

a sufficiency challenge are cognizable. See Commonwealth v. Livingston,

No. 430 EDA 2021, 2022 WL 678933, at **5-6 (Pa. Super. filed Mar. 8, 2022)

(unpublished memorandum) (addressing a PCRA claim that counsel was

ineffective for failing to raise a sufficiency of the evidence claim).

-7-
J-S47003-25

“Generally, counsel’s performance is presumed to be constitutionally

adequate, and counsel will only be deemed ineffective upon a sufficient

showing by the petitioner.” Commonwealth v. Ramirez-Contreras, 320

A.3d 756, 760 (Pa. Super. 2024) (citation omitted). “To plead and prove

ineffective assistance of counsel a petitioner must establish: (1) that the

underlying issue has arguable merit; (2) counsel’s actions lacked an objective

reasonable basis; and (3) actual prejudice resulted from counsel’s act or

failure to act.” Commonwealth v. Stultz, 114 A.3d 865, 880 (Pa. Super.

2015) (citation omitted). “[I]f a claim fails under any required element, we

may dismiss the claim on that basis.” Commonwealth v. Kapellusch, 323

A.3d 837, 847 (Pa. Super. 2024) (citation omitted).

As a preliminary matter, we observe that issues raised for the first time

on appeal are waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a). Additionally, “for purposes of

appellate review, what is not in the certified record does not exist.”

Commonwealth v. Garvin, 50 A.3d 694, 700 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation

omitted).

Here, Dunkowski concedes that he was provided the emails by his court

appointed counsel on December 17, 2024, and that he filed his amended PCRA

petition on January 13, 2025. See Reply Brief, at 7-8. However, he did not

attach the emails to his PCRA petition, they are not otherwise in the certified

record and are instead attached to his appellate brief. As such, we cannot

-8-
J-S47003-25

consider the emails.6 Therefore, we limit our review to Dunkowski’s claim that

counsel was ineffective for failing to move for dismissal based on the

sentencing court’s comment at sentencing.

As the Commonwealth points out, the required mens rea for EWOC is

“knowingly” not “intentionally.” See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4304(a)(1) (“[a] parent .

. . commits an offense if he knowingly endangers the welfare of the child by

violating a duty of care, protection or support.”). “To be convicted under

[Section 4304], the Commonwealth must prove a knowing violation of a duty

of care.” Commonwealth v. Vela-Garrett, 251 A.3d 811, 815 (Pa. Super.

2021) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

The PCRA court aptly summarized why the sentencing court’s statement

did not indicate a lack of sufficient evidence to sustain Dunkowski’s EWOC

convictions.

When read in full context, it is clear th[e sentencing c]ourt was
referring to the fact that [Dunkowski] did not have unwavering
malicious intent to viciously harm his children. It does not refer to
the fact that [Dunkowski] knowingly neglected his children by
failing to meet their basic needs for things such as food, water,
and hygiene. The evidence at trial proved beyond a reasonable
doubt that [Dunkowski] knew his failure to provide such things
would result in school aged children who were so weak they could
barely function and who were so developmentally delayed they
lacked basic skills such as the ability to use a toilet. The testimony
and photographs admitted at trial proved beyond a reasonable
doubt that [Dunkowski’s] children were so obviously infirm that

---

6 We briefly note that our cursory review of the email correspondence indicates

that they occurred before trial and thus, were seemingly part of plea
negotiations, not an agreement as to sentencing. Dunkowski did not enter a
guilty plea and was convicted at trial.

-9-
J-S47003-25

even [Dunkowski] felt the need to hide the existence of his eighth
child from authorities. Therefore, a review of the record makes
clear there is no doubt as to [Dunkowski’s] guilt nor is that guilt
negated by [Dunkowski’s] attempt to misconstrue a statement
made by th[e sentencing c]ourt at sentencing.

PCRA Court Opinion, 6/20/25, at 7-8.

As explained by the PCRA court, the sentencing court’s comment did not

negate the sufficient evidence to sustain Dunkowski’s EWOC convictions.

Because Dunkowski’s claim lacks merit, counsel cannot be found to be

ineffective. See Commonwealth v. Staton, 632 Pa. 400, 427, 120 A.3d 277,

293 (Pa. 2015) (holding that counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing

to pursue a meritless claim). Therefore, Dunkowski is not entitled to relief on

his second claim.

In his third issue, Dunkowski claims his trial counsel was ineffective for

failing to call his eldest daughter and son (who are twins), J.D. and M.D., to

testify on his behalf.7 See Appellant’s Brief, at 22-24. He argues that counsel

was aware of their existence and willingness to testify because they were

seated outside the courtroom during trial and had spoken with defense

counsel. See id. Further, he argues that he was prejudiced because J.D. and

M.D. would have testified to their family’s homelessness and thus their father’s

lack of intent to harm his children. See id. at 24. The Commonwealth argues

that in his PCRA petition Dunkowski cited no authority and merely baldly

---

7 J.D. and M.D. were seventeen at the time of trial and were the only two
children for which Dunkowski and his wife were not facing EWOC charges.

• 10 - J-S47003-25

asserted that he was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to call his two children as

witnesses. See Appellee’s Brief, at 31.

When raising a claim of ineffectiveness for the failure to call a
potential witness, a petitioner satisfies the performance and
prejudice requirements of the Strickland test by establishing
that: (1) the witness existed; (2) the witness was available to
testify for the defense; (3) counsel knew of, or should have known
of, the existence of the witness; (4) the witness was willing to
testify for the defense; and (5) the absence of the testimony of
the witness was so prejudicial as to have denied the defendant a
fair trial. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 600 Pa. 329, 966 A.2d
523, 536 (2009); Commonwealth v. Clark, 599 Pa. 204, 961
A.2d 80, 90 (2008). To demonstrate Strickland prejudice, a
petitioner “must show how the uncalled witnesses’ testimony
would have been beneficial under the circumstances of the case.”
Commonwealth v. Gibson, 597 Pa. 402, 951 A.2d 1110, 1134
(2008). Thus, counsel will not be found ineffective for failing to
call a witness unless the petitioner can show that the witness’s
testimony would have been helpful to the defense.
Commonwealth v. Auker, 545 Pa. 521, 681 A.2d 1305, 1319
(1996). “A failure to call a witness is not per se ineffective
assistance of counsel for such decision usually involves matters of
trial strategy.” Id.

Commonwealth v. Sneed, 45 A.3d 1096, 1108-09 (Pa. 2012).

The PCRA court aptly summarized how Dunkowski failed to establish

prejudice.

[Dunkowski] attached two unsigned, unverified “emails” to his
Amended PCRA Petition that are purportedly authored by his two
(then minor) children, J.D. and M.D. In sum, the letters state that
[Dunkowski] was merely trying to do his best amid serious
financial troubles and that they feel the sentence imposed by th[e
sentencing c]ourt is too severe. In his Amended PCRA Petition,
[Dunkowski] argues that these letters prove Trial Counsel should
have called J.D. and M.D. as witnesses. However, [Dunkowski]
does [not] address the fact that neither J.D. nor M.D. were in the
vehicle when the Victims were found and [Dunkowski] was
arrested. He does not address the fact that they have no first-
hand knowledge of the situation as they were both staying with

• 11 - J-S47003-25

friends at the time (as they explain in their letters). In fact,
[Dunkowski] even states that Trial Counsel decided not to call
them as witnesses as they “would be a liability, and the D.A. would
take them apart.” Ironically, [Dunkowski] does not even realize
that his own argument undermines his claim. It is clear that even
if [Dunkowski’s] claim had merit (which th[e PCRA c]ourt believes
it does not), Trial Counsel had a reasonable basis to decline to
present J.D. and M.D. as witnesses. Even if they were presented,
the Commonwealth could have easily challenged and discredited
their testimony with the plethora of photographs and statements
from individuals who had firsthand knowledge of the incident as
they were actually present at the scene of the crime.

....

[Further], it is obvious that, not only would J.D. and M.D.’s
testimony have not helped [Dunkowski], it would have most likely
actually hurt his defense.

PCRA Court Opinion, 6/20/25, at 15-16.

We agree with the PCRA court’s assessment. Dunkowski has failed to

establish how he was prejudiced by trial counsel’s failure to call J.D. and M.D.

as witnesses where their testimony would not have been helpful to his

defense. Moreover, as observed by the PCRA court, counsel had a reasonable

basis to decline to present them. Therefore, Dunkowski’s ineffective assistance

of counsel claim fails.

Moving away from the PCRA petition, in his final issue, Dunkowski raises

the sentencing court’s failure to determine his RRRI eligibility for the first time.

See Appellant’s Brief, at 5, 25-29.

Under the RRRI Act, “[a]t the time of sentencing, the court shall make

a determination whether the defendant is an eligible offender.” 61 Pa.C.S.A.

§ 4505(a). A sentencing court’s failure to assess a defendant’s RRRI eligibility

• 12 - J-S47003-25

implicates the legality of the sentence and may be raised for the first time in

PCRA review. See Commonwealth v. Finnecy, 249 A.3d 903, 912 (Pa.

2021); see also Commonwealth v. Armolt, 294 A.3d 364, 376 (Pa. 2023)

(“An appellate court may address, and even raise sua sponte, challenges to

the legality of an appellant’s sentence even if the issue [were] not preserved

in the trial court.”) (citation omitted).

The Commonwealth concedes that the sentencing court failed to

consider Dunkowski’s RRRI eligibility, which our review of the sentencing

transcript confirms. See Appellee’s Brief, at 16, 36-38. We commend the

Commonwealth for its candor in this regard. As the Commonwealth correctly

observes in its brief, although Dunkowski did not raise this issue before the

PCRA court and this failure would ordinarily result in waiver under Pa.R.A.P.

302, issues pertaining to legality of sentence can never be waived. It is

unfortunate that the PCRA court was not given the opportunity to address this

issue while the case was still before the PCRA court.

Thus, we agree that a remand is necessary solely for the sentencing

court to make the RRRI determination. Hence, in summary we affirm the PCRA

court’s order dismissing Dunkowski’s PCRA petition and vacate and remand

the judgment of sentence for the court’s limited purpose of making a RRRI

determination at sentencing.

Order affirmed. Judgment of sentence vacated. Case remanded for

proceedings consistent with this memorandum. Jurisdiction relinquished.

• 13 - J-S47003-25

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 3/9/2026

• 14 - IN IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PLEAS OF BUCKS BUCKS COUNTY DIVISION CRIMINAL DIVISION

COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA

No.
No. CP-XX-XXXXXXX-2020
€P-XX-XXXXXXX-2020
v.

ALBERT DUNKOWSKI
DUNKOWSKI

OPINION

Defendant,
Defendant, Albert
Albert Dunkowski
Dunkowski (hereinafter "Appellant"), appeals this Court's denial of his
(hereinafter Appellant"),

Petition
Petition for Relief pursuant
pursuant to the Post
Post Conviction Relief Act
Act (hereinafter
(hereinafter "PCRA") May . 14,
PCRA") on May 14,

2025.
2025. This Opinion is
is filed
filed pursuant
pursuant to
to Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate
Appellate Procedure 1925(a).
1925(a).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The facts of this case were discussed at length
length in
in this Court's June 23, Opinion and
23, 2022 0pinion

are set forth
forth as follows:
follows:

The incident
incident underlying
underlying Appellant's convictions stem from an investigation
stem from investigation that
began on on August
August 27, 2019. Officer Scott Patrick
27, 2019. Patrick (hereinafter "Officer Patrick")
(hereinafter Officer was
Patrick") was
on patrol
patrol when he noticed,a vehicle parked in in the very rear of the parking parking lot of the
Woodbourne Train Train Station,
Station, located
located in in Middletown Township, Bucks
Middletown Township, County,
Bucks County,
Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania. N.T. N.T. 10/4/2021, pp. 32-33. He
pp. 32-33. called for additional
He called Officers—
additional Officers-
Officer Samantha Weed Weed (hereinafter
(hereinafter "Officer Weed") Weed") and Officer Christopher
Viscardi
Viscardi (hereinafter
(hereinafter"Officer
Officer Viscardi")—
Viscardi") and as as they
they approached,
approached, Officer Patrick Patrick
noticed Appellant lying
noticed Appellant lying face-down in in the grass, about ten
grass, about ten to fifteen yards
to fifteen away. Id.
yards away. Id,
at 34.
34. Appellant
Appellant told
told Officer Patrick
Patrick that
that he
he was
was going
going toto the bathroom
bathroom and and did
did not
not
want
want to to be seen. Id.
be seen. Officer Patrick
Id. Officer Patrick then
then came across Christine
came across Christine Dunkowski
Dunkowski
"Co-Defendant"), Appellant's
(hereinafter "Co-Defendant"), wife. She
Appellant's wife. sat slumped
She sat slumped over in the
over in the front
passenger
passenger seat with with three children
children laying
laying in in the
the rear seats
seats of the
the vehicle,
vehicle, which
which waswas
cluttered with
cluttered with trash,
trash, personal
personal items, clothing, food,
items, clothing, food, and debris. Id.
and debris. Id. at
at pp. 36, 55.
pp. 36, 55. As
As
the Officers opened
the Officers opened the door to
the door speak with
to speak Co-Defendant, they
with Co-Defendant, they immediately
immediately
smelled a strong
smelled strong odor
odor of urine,
urine, soiled
soiled diapers,
diapers, stale cigarettes, and
stale cigarettes, rotting food. Id.
and rotting Id.
It
It was
was then
then that
that they
they noticed
noticed aa fourth
fourth child
child on the
the floor,
floor, completely
completely covered in in trash.
trash.
Id. at p.
Id, at 37. Officer
p. 37. Officer Weed also discovered
Weed also discovered aacat cat in
in the back trunk
the back trunk ofof the vehicle. [d
the vehicle. Id.
at p.
at p. 55.
55.

I1
Alarmed at at the children's emaciated
emaciated state,
state, the Officers immediately called called
Emergency Medical Services (hereinafter
Medical Services (hereinafter "EMS")
"EMS) to the scene.scene. Id.
Id. They testified
testified
that
that the children,
children, later identified
identified as N.D.,
N.D., J.D., L.D.
L.D. (hereinafter
(hereinafter "Female L.D.")
L.D.")
and L.D.
L.D. (hereinafter
(hereinafter "Male L.D."),
L.D."), looked gravely
gravely ill, were covered in feces, urine,
in feces, urine,
and bugs,
bugs, and appeared malnourished.
malnourished. N.T.
N.T. 10/4/2021,
10/4/2021, pp.pp. 55-57;
55-57; N.T.
N.T. 10/5/21, pp. pp.
7, 17.
17. When EMSEMS arrived,
arrived, Co-Defendant
Co-Defendant refused
refused to let them
them take the children
children to
the hospital
hospital for treatment.
treatment. N.T.
N.T. 10/4/2021, p. p. 39.
39. Officer Patrick
Patrick and EMS
EMS had no
choice
choice but
but to
to take
take protective
protective custody
custody of
of the
the children,
children, and
and they
they were
were immediately
immediately
transported
transported to
to St. Mary's Medical Center (hereinafter
Medical Center (hereinafter "St. Mary's").
Mary's"). Id.
Id.

At
At St. Mary's,
Mary's, treating
treating physicians made made the following assessments:
assessments: N.D.,N.D., who
suffered
suffered from from cerebral
cerebral palsy,palsy, was
was thirteen
thirteen years old old and weighed about about ninety
pounds.
pounds. N.T. N.T. 10/5/2021, p. 20. She was
p. 20. was nonverbal,
nonverbal, had afeeding
feeding tube,
tube, and started
started
to
to develop bedsores from from remaining in in the same position
position for asignificant
significant amount
amount
of time.
time. Id.Id. at p.
p. 36.36. J.D.
J.D. was
was four years old old and weighed aboutabout forty
forty pounds.
pounds. Id.Id. at
p.
p. 23.
23. She was was still in in diapers as she was was not
not yet
yet trained
trained to go to to the bathroom
bathroom on
her own and she needed extensive dental dental work
work -a— aroot
root canal,
canal, acrown,
crown, and three
fillings. Id.
fillings. Id. at
at pp.
pp. 91, 95. Female
91, 95. Female L.D. was five
L.D. was five years
years old
old and
and weighed
weighed aboutabout forty-
forty-
eight
eight pounds.
pounds. Id.Id. at at pp. 25-26. She was
pp. 25-26. was also
also still in
in diapers and needed nine root root
canals,
canals, nine crowns,
crowns, one filling,filling, and four teeth
teeth pulled.
pulled. Id.
Id. at p.
p. 96.
96. She had never
been to to school.
school. Id.Id. Male L.D. L.D. was
was nine years old old and weighed aboutabout sixty
sixty pounds.
pounds.
Id.
Id. atat p.
p. 24.
24. HeHe had had bilateral
bilateral clubfeet
clubfeet (meaning
(meaning his his legs
legs and
and feet
feet were
were turned
turned
inwards)
inwards) as well well as undescended testicles testicles (which normally descend before age one). one).
Both required
required procedures—several
procedures-several
. to improve
improve Male L.D.'s. clubfeet
clubfeet. and one to to
surgically
surgically descend his testicles. testicles. Id.
Id. at
at pp.
pp. 96-97,
96-97, 104.
104. Male L.D.L.D. also
also had such a
severe,
severe, significant
significant amount
amount of dried,dried, caked-on fecal
fecal matter on his diaper that that when
the doctor
doctor pulled
pulled it back,
back, Male L.D.'s skin skin became raw raw and red.
red. Id.Id. at
at p.
p. 39. Dr.
39. Dr.
Torradas,
orradas, the physician
physician who who treated
treated the children,
children, testified
testified that,
that, over
over the course of
his lengthy career,
career, he had never never seen
seen anything like whatwhat he saw
saw on August
August 27,27, 2019.
2019.
Id.
Id. at p.p. 40.
40.

That
That same day,day, Appellant
Appellant and Co-Defendant
Co-Defendant spokespoke with Detective Brian Hyams
Hyams
(hereinafter "Detective
(hereinafter Hyams") and
"Detective Hyams") and told
told him
him that
that none
none of
of the
the four children found
four children found
were enrolled
enrolled inin school.
school. N.T.
N.T. 10/4/2021, pp. 70-71. Detective Hyams
pp. 70-71. Hyams asked if if they
had any additional
additional children
children and they provided the namesnames of three more
more minors
minors inin
their care.
care. Id.
Id. at p.
p. 72.
72. They relayed
relayed that
that one child,
child, R.M.,
R.M., was
was staying with afriend
friend
at the time,
time, but
but neither Appellant
Appellant nor
nor Co-Defendant
Co-Defendant could
could provide any contact
contact
information
information to getget in
in touch with her.
her. Id.
Id. at p.
p. 74.
74. Authorities eventually
eventually found R.M.
R.M.
and discovered
discovered that
that she missed almost
almost the entire 2018-2019
2018-2019 school
school year
year and had an
abscess inin her tooth that
that rendered
rendered her unable to chew
chew and required
required significant
significant dental
dental
surgery.
surgery. N.T.
N.T. 10/5/2021, pp. pp. 98-98.
98-98. Fortunately,
Fortunately, R.D.
R.D. did
did not
not require
require immediate,
immediate,
emergency medical
medical treatment.
treatment.

Shortly
Shortly thereafter, Hyams discovered
thereafter, Detective Hyams discovered that
that Appellant
Appellant and Co-Defendant
Co-Defendant
had
had an
an eighth
eighth minor
minor child—S.D.
child-S.D.- they
they did
did not
not mention
mention when
when previously
previously asked.
asked.
N.T.
N.T. 10/4/2021, pp.
pp. 75-76.
75-76. After some investigation,
investigation, Detective Hyams
Hyams located S.D.
located S.D.

2
and
and Appellant
Appellant agreed
agreed to "turn her
to "turn her over"
over" to to authorities
authorities in
in a
a McDonald's
McDonald's parking
parking lot.
lot.
Id.
Id, at p.
p. 79. S.D. "appeared
79. S.D. "appeared to to be very
very thin,
thin, small,
small, disheveled.
disheveled. HerHer hair was
was very
very
short as if
short if it
it wasn't
wasn't growing,
growing, or or falling
falling out.
out. Her
Her eyes
eyes were
were puffy
puffy underneath.
underneath. She She
was very, quiet, almost
very, very quiet, almost like she was
was lethargic." N.T. 10/5/2021, p.
N,T. 10/5/2021, p. 83. Doctors
83, Doctors
later determined she weighed
weighed about
about forty-two
forty-two pounds. Id. at p.
pounds. Id. p. 146.
146. S.D.
S.D. was
was unable
to walk because her legs were bent bent and stuck in in a seated position. Id.[d, at p. 84. She
p. 84.
also
also still
still needed diapers—at
needed diapers at thirteen
thirteen years
years old—because
because Appellant
old Appellant and Co- Co-
Defendant
Defendant never never taught
taught her
her how
how to to use
use the bathroom.
bathroom. Id. Id, at
at p.
p. 101.
101. Authorities
Authorities
immediately took protective custody custody of S.D,S.D. and transported
transported her to St.St. Mary's
Mary's with
the other
the children. Id,
other children. Id. at
at p. 83.
83.

From
From St.St. Mary's,
Mary's, all five children
children were transported
transported to St. Christopher's
to St. Christopher's Hospital
Hospital
for Children
Children (hereinafter Christopher's'). N.T.
(hereinafter "St. Christopher's"). N,T, 10/5/2021, pp.
pp. 47, 85. While at
47, 85.
St. Christopher's, Bucks
St. Christopher's, County Children
Bucks County Children andand Youth Caseworker Sarah Santin
Youth Caseworker Santin
(hereinafter
(hereinafter"Ms. Ms. Santin")
Santin") met
met with
with the children
children to investigate allegations of abuse
investigate allegations
and neglect.
neglect. Id.Id, at pp.
pp. 58-59.
58-59, Ms. Santin noted that
Ms. Santin that N.D., similar
similar to
to S.D., could notnot
fully
fully extend
extend her her legs
legs and
and had
had severely
severely chapped
chapped lips.
lips. Id.
Id, at p. 60.
60. She
She testified
testified that
that
all of
of the
the children appeared thin,
children appeared thin, had
had fine
fine and
and thinning
thinning hair,
hair, and
and had severe d
had severe dry
skin.
skin. Id.
Id, at p. 61.
61. Two
Two ofof the
the children,
children, N.D.
N.D. and S.D.,
S.D., remained
remained admitted
admitted to to St.
St.
Christopher's
Christopher's for for several
several weeks.
weeks. Id,Id. at
at p.
p. 67. S.D. required
67. S.D. required intensive
intensive physical
physical
therapy
therapy to to regain
regain the the ability
ability to to walk.
walk. Id.
Id, at
at pp.
pp. 149-50.
149-50. Ultimately,
Ultimately, doctors
determined
determined that that S.D.'s
S.D.'s and
and N.D's
N.D's issues
issues were
were a a result
result of of chronic
chronic neglect—i.e.
neglect i.e.
neglect
neglect over
over months.
months. Id,Id. Therefore,
Therefore, Ms. Ms. Santin
Santin believed that the children were
unsafe with Appellant Co-Defendant and petitioned
Appellant and Co-Defendant petitioned a judge
judge toto take emergency
emergency
custody
custody of thethe children.
children. Id.
Id. at
at p.
p. 65.
65. That
That Petition
Petition was granted and
was granted and the children were
the children were
placed in
placed in foster Id.
homes. Id.
homes.

On September 10,
On September 10, 2019,
2019, Appellant
Appellant was
was charged
charged with
with six
six counts
counts ofof Endangering
Endangering thethe
Welfare
Welfare of Children
Children in in connection with
with the state of the minor children. On
minor children. On January
January
9, 2020, Appellant
9,2020, Appellant waived his Preliminary
Preliminary Hearing
Hearing and agreed
agreed to enter aguilty
guilty plea
plea
in
in exchange
exchange for
for the
the Commonwealth amendingamending the charges to
the charges to only
only one
one count
count of
Endangering
Endangering thethe Welfare
Welfare of of Children.
Children. However,
However, shortly
shortly after,
after, Appellant
Appellant indicated
indicated
that
that he
he wished
wished toto proceed
proceed with
with a
a jury
jury trial
trial and
and the
the Commonwealth filed filed a Motion
Motion
to
to Amend
Amend the
the Criminal
Criminal Information
Information to add back
to add back the
the five additional Endangering
five additional Endangering thethe
Welfare
Welfare of
of Children
Children Counts,
Counts, which
which this
this Court
Court granted
granted on
on April
April 29, 2021. Therefore,
29,2021 Therefore,
at the time of trial, Appellant
Appellant was charged with
was charged with six
six counts of Endangering
Endangering the
Welfare
Welfare of Children--two
Children—two gradedgraded as felonies of the second degree
degree and four
four graded
graded
as felonies
as felonies of
of the
the third
third degree
degree's.

Appellant's
Appellant's juryjury trial
trial began
began onon October
October 4,4, 2021
2021 and
and lasted
lasted for
for three days.
days. At
At the
the
end of the
the second day, October
second day, October 5,
5, 2021,
2021, Appellant
Appellant testified
testified on direct examination.
on direct examination.
This Court
Court then recessed the proceedings
proceedings for the day
day and Ordered:
Ordered: ((I)1) the jury
jury to
appear at
appear at 9:30
9:30 A.M.;
A.M.; and
and (2)
(2) Appellant
Appellant and
and Co-Defendant
Co-Defendant to appear at
to appear at 9:00
9.00 A.M.
A.M
the following
following day.day. N.T.
N.T. 10/5/21,
10/5/21, p.
p. 222.
222. However,
However, Appellant
Appellant and and Co-Defendant
Co-Defendant
both
both failed
failed toto appear, and a
appear, and a bench
bench warrant
warrant was
was issued
issued onon October
October 6,6, 2021.
2021. After
After

'18 Pa.C.S. §$4304(a)6
18Pa.CS. 4304(a)(1).
D)

3
Defense
Defense Counsel
Counsel andand the
the Commonwealth
Commonwealth made made numerous, unsuccessful attempts
numerous, unsuccessful attempts
to
to contact
contact Appellant
Appellant andand Co-Defendant
Co-Defendant using
using all
all available
available resources,
resources, this
this Court
Court
ruled
ruled that
that the
the trial
trial would
would continue
continue in
in absentia.
absentia. N.T.
N.T. 10/6/21,
10/6/21, p.
p. 30.
30. Later
Later that
that same
same
day,
day, the jury
jury found Appellant
Appellant guilty
guilty of three of the six
six counts of Endangering
Endangering the
Welfare
Welfare of
of Children—all
Children-all felonies
felonies of
of the
the third degree.
third degree.

Almost
Almost a a month
month later,
later, Appellant
Appellant was
was located
located out
out of
of state,
state, and,
and, on
on November
November 3, 3,
2021, Judge
2021, Judge Rea
Rea B.
B. Boylan
Boylan rescinded the the bench
bench warrant
warrant andand Ordered
Ordered Appellant
Appellant be
be
held
held in
in the
the Bucks Correctional Facility
Bucks County Correctional Facility until
until sentencing.
sentencing. OnOn February
February 7,
2022, this
2022, this Court
Court sentenced
sentenced Appellant
Appellant to
to no less than
no less than three
three (3)
(3) years
years to
to no
no more
more than
than
seven
seven (7)
(7) years in
in astate correctional
correctional institution
institution on each of the three counts,
counts, to
to run
consecutively
consecutively toto each
each other.
other. Therefore,
Therefore, this Court imposed
this Court imposed an an aggregate
aggregate sentence
sentence
of no
of no less
less than
than nine
nine (9)
(9) years
years to no more
to no more than
than (21)
(21) years
years inin a
a state
state correctional
correctional
institution.
institution. Appellant
Appellant was
was also
also Ordered to have no contact
contact with S.D.,
S.D., L.D.,
L.D., and
N.D..
N.D . This
This sentence
sentence was
was above
above the
the aggravated
aggravated range of of Appellant's
Appellant's sentencing
sentencing
guidelines.
guidelines.

Commonwealth v.
Commonwealth v. Dunkowski, CP-09-CR-0000225-2020, pp.
Dunkowski, CP-09-CR-0000225-2020, 1-5 (Bucks
pp. 1-5 (Bucks Cty.
Cty. June
June 23, 2022).
23, 2022).

On
On April
April 1, 2022, Appellant
1, 2022, Appellant filed
filed a
a direct
direct appeal
appeal to
to the
the Superior
Superior Court
Court of Pennsylvania,
of Pennsylvania,

which affirmed
affirmed this Court's judgment
judgment of sentence on August
August 10,
10, 2023.
2023. On July
July 29, 2024, Appellant
29, 2024, Appellant

filed his first PCRA Petition,
filed Petition. This Court
Court appointed Stuart
Stuart Wilder,
Wilder, Esquire to.represent
to .represent Appellant,
Appellant,

but
but on September
September 4, 2024, Mr.
4, 2024, Mr. Wilder
Wilder filed
filed aMotion to
to Allow
Allow Defendant
Defendant to
to Represent
Represent Himself in
in

his Petition
Petition for PCRA Relief.
Relief. The Petition
Petition stated
stated that
that Appellant
Appellant wished to represent
represent himself,
himself, and

after a
after a hearing
hearing on
on the
the matter
matter where
where Appellant advised this
Appellant advised Court of
this Court of the
the same,
same, this Court granted
this Court granted

Appellant's Motion on December 18, 2024.
December 18, 2024.

On January 13, 2025,
2025, Appellant
Appellant filed
filed his prose
se Amended Petition
Petition for Post
Post Conviction
Conviction

Collateral Relief,
Collateral Relief, wherein
wherein he
he challenged
challenged· the
the sufficiency
sufficiency of
of the
the evidence
evidence presented
presented at
at trial
trial and
and

alleged
alleged this Court
Court abused its discretion
discretion when imposing sentence and that
that his trial counsel
counsel was
was

ineffective
ineffective for:
for: ((1)
1) not
not "moving
"moving for
for dismissal
dismissal of
of the
the indictment"
indictment" during
during said
said sentencing;
sentencing; (2)
(2) not
not

interviewing
interviewing his
his children
children in
in preparation
preparation for
for trial;
trial; and
and (3)
(3) not
not filing
filing a
a successful
successful direct
direct appeal.
appeal. On

February 11, 2025,
2025, the Commonwealth filed
filed its response
response to Appellant's
Appellant's Amended PCRA Petition.
Petition.

On February -
24, 2025,
24, 2025, this Court
Court issued
issued aNotice of Intent
Intent to Dismiss Pursuant
Pursuant to
to Pa.
Pa. R.
R. Crim.
Crim. P.
P.

4
4
907 and stated
stated that
that the claims were without
without merit and did
did not
not warrant evidentiary hearing.
warrant an evidentiary hearing. On

March 11,
March 11, 2025,
2025, Appellant
Appellant filed an Objection
filed an to Notice
Objection to of Intent
Notice of On May
to Dismiss. On
Intent to May 14,
14, 2025,
2025,

this
this Court
Court formally dismissed Appellant's
formally dismissed Appellant's pro
pro se
se Amended
Amended PCRA
PCRA Petition.
Petition. On June 2,
On June 2, 2025,
2025,

Appellant filed Notice
Appellant filed of Appeal
Notice of Appeal to
to the Superior Court.
the Superior Court.

STATEMENT OF MATTERS
MATTERS COMPLAINED ON APPEAL

On June
June 2,
2, 2025,
2025, at the
the time
time of filing
filing Notice
Notice of Appeal,
Appeal, Appellant
Appellant also
also filed
filed a Concise

Statement of
Statement of Matters Complained of
Matters Complained of on
on Appeal,
Appeal, 2 alleging
alleging the following,
following, verbatim:
verbatim:

a)
a) [Did]
[Did] the trial court
court clearly
clearly err in
in not correcting, at
not correcting, at sentencing,
sentencing, the jury's
jury's verdict,
verdict,
once the court
court became aware that there was was no intent byby the Petitioner to
to commit
commit
he offenses
the offenses charged?
charged?

Suggested Response:
Response: In
In the Affirmative

June 11,
2 On
pa June 11, 2025,
2025, Appellant
Appellant filed,
filed, without
without leave
leave of
of Court, an Amended
Court, an Statement which
Concise Statement
Amended Concise which raised
raised one
one
additional issue
issue for
for review:
review;

[Was]
[Was] Judge
Judge Wallace H. Bateman,
Wallace H. Bateman, Jr.Jr complicit
complicit inin the erroneous transmittal
the erroneous of the
transmittal of the fraudulent
fraudulent
information
information received
received by
by the Department
Department of of Homeland
Homeland Security
Security in
in deceptively
deceptively listing
listing (4) counts of
(4) counts of
Cruelty Toward
"Cruelty Child", as
Toward Child", as the
the convictions
convictions won
won inin this case, which
this case, which exist only under
exist only under Florida's Crime
Florida's Crime
Stat. $§ $27.0710),
Code Stat. 827.071(3), and is a
and is a charge
charge that is
is indicative
indicative of sexual abuse
of sexual abuse.

This Count
Court notes that this additional
additional allegation
allegation of error is
is procedurally
procedurally deficient. First,
First, Appellant did not
Appellant did not request
request leave
of court to
of court to file an Amended
file an Concise Statement.
Amended Concise Statement. Second,
Second, Appellant
Appellant has
has not
not previously raised this
previously raised before the
issue before
this issue filing
the filing
of his
of his Amended Concise Statement.
Amended Concise Statement. "Issues
"Issues not
not raised
raised in the lower
in the lower court are waived
court are waived and cannot be
and cannot be raised
raised for
for the
the first
time on appeal."
appeal." Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).
Pa.R.A.P. 302(a)

"The
The absence
absence of
of aacontemporaneous
contemporaneous objection
objection below constitutes a
below constitutes a waiver"
waiver" ofof the claim on
the claim on appeal.
appeal.
Commonwealth
Commonwealth v. , Powell,
POwell, 956 A.2d 406, 423 (Pa.
406, 423 (Pa. 2008); Tindall v.
2008); Tindall v. Friedman,
Friedman, 970 A.2d 1159, 1174
4.2d 1159,1174
(Pa. Super. 2009)
(Pa. Super 2009)(On("On appeal,
appeal, we
we will
will not assignments of error
not consider assignments error that
that were
were not brought to
not brought
the tribunal's attention
the tribunal's at aatime
attention at at which
time at which the error could
the error could have been corrected
have been or the
corrected or prejudice
alleged prejudice
the alleged
could
could have
have been
been mitigated. ")
mitigated.")

Commonwealth
Commonwealth • v. Smith,
Smith, 213
213 A.3d
A.34 307,
307, 309
309 (Pa. Super. 2019)
(Pa. Super. 2019) (quoting Commonwealth v.
(quoting Commonwealth Rodriguez, 174
y. Rodriguez, A.3d 1130,
174 A.3d 1130,
1145 (Pa. Super. 2017).
(Pa. Super 2017). Further,
Further, notwithstanding
notwithstanding these procedural defects, this Court
procedural defects, Court is
is unable to to address this
allegation as it
allegation it is
is incoherent
incoherent and confusing. Rule
and confusing. Rule 1925()(ii)
1925(b)(ii) specifieally
specifically states
states that "[t]he Statement
that [the Statement shall concisely
concisely
identify each
identify each error
error that the appellant
that the appellant intends
intends to assert with
to assert to identify
detail to
sufficient detail
with sufficient identify the issue to
the issue to be raised for
be raised for the
the
judge."
judge." Because Appellant
Appellant has raised
raised an unintelligible
unintelligible issue, Court is unable to
issue, this Court engage in
to engage meaningful analysis
in a meaningful analysis
and believes that Appellant
Appellant "ha[s] deliberately circumvented the meaning
"ha[s] deliberately meaning and purpose
purpose of Rule 1925(b)
1925(b) and ha[s]
ha[s]
thereby effectively precluded
thereby effectively precluded appellate
appellate review
review of
of the issues
issues [he]
[he] now raise." Kanter
now seek[s] to raise." Kaner• Ea2sin, 866 A.2d
v. Epstein,
394, 401 (Pa.
394, (Pa. Super.
Super 2004).
2004). Appellant
Appellant was convicted
convicted of Endangering
Endangering the Welfare Children, in
Welfare of Children, in violation
violation ofof
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania statute 18 18 Pa.C.S.
Pa.CS. §$ 4304(a)1).
4304(a)(1). Appellant
Appellant fails to explain,
fails to explain, nor
nor can Court discern,
can this Count discern, how
how a a Florida
Florida
statute is
statute is relevant and at
relevant and at issue
issue in
in the
the instant
instant matter.
matter.

5
position itself
court improperly position
[Did] the sentencing court
b) [Did]
b) itself as factfinder during the
then hand-down aharsh sentence?
sentencing phase and then

In the Affirmative
Response: In
Suggested Response:

dismissal of the
not moving for adismissal
counsel ineffective for not
trial counsel
[Was] Petitioner's trial
c) [Was]
conviction due to
indictment and conviction
indictment to the judge's comments sentencing, making the
comments at sentencing,
is negated?
act is
guilty act
the guilty
rea, the
mens rea,
culpable mens
a culpable
without a
that without
point that
point negated?

the Affirmative
In the
Response: In
Suggested Response:
Suggested Affirmative

at all,
children at
interview Petitioner's children
failing to interview
counsel ineffective for failing
trial counsel
[Was] trial
d) [Was]
d)
[ they occurred]
events [as
version of events
without their version
was unprepared for trial without
and thus was occurred]
homeless period?
during their homeless

In the Affirmative
Response: In
Suggested Response:

not addressing the issues contained
Counsel ineffective for not
Appeal Counsel
Direct Appeal
[Was] Direct
e) [Was]
e)
causal to aLayered ineffectiveness issue?
herein causal

Response: In the Affirmative
Suggested Response:

ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS

I.1 This Court
This not err by not
Court did not "correcting, at
not "correcting, sentencing, the jury's verdict.
at sentencing, verdict.""

at sentencing after,
verdict at
correct the jury's verdict
Court had aduty to correct
argues this Court
Appellant argues
Appellant after,

mens rea for
possess the requisite mens
not possess
Appellant did not
that Appellant
Appellant, acknowledging that
according to Appellant,
according

argument fails.
This argument
convicted. This
was convicted.
he was
which he
for which
crimes for
the crimes fails.

as achallenge to
claim, which can be categorized as
Appellant's claim,
that Appellant's
notes that
Court notes
this Court
First, this
First,

See 42 Pa.C.S.
PCRA. See
under the PCRA.
not cognizable under
trial, is not
at trial,
presented at
sufficiency of the evidence presented
the sufficiency
the Pa.C.S.

([Appellant] essentially
1998) ("[Appellant]
Super. 1998)
(Pa. Super.
861 (Pa.
855, 861
A.2d 855,
706 A.2d
Bell, 706
v. Bell,
Commonwealth v.
§9543; Commonwealth
§9543;

petition, 42
context of aPCRA petition,
the context
in the
cognizable in
not cognizable
claims, not
evidence claims,
the evidence
of the
raises sufficiency of
raises

Super. 2005)
(Pa. Super.
995 (Pa.
988, 995
876 A.2d 988,
Price, 876
v. Price,
Commonwealth v.
and Commonwealth
9543."); and
Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9543.");
Pa.C.S.A. 2005)

without any
appeal, and without
direct appeal,
as if on direct
appeal as
on appeal
us on
to us
claim to
his claim
presents his
Appellant presents
("Instantly, Appellant
("Instantly,

constitutional violation,
a constitutional
claim a
not claim
does not
Appellant does
Further, Appellant
analysis. Further,
counsel analysis.
of counsel
ineffectiveness of
ineffectiveness violation,

6
6
an unlawfully
unlawfully induced guilty
guilty plea,
plea, the improper obstruction of the right
improper obstruction right to appeal, the
to appeal, the existence of

after-discovered exculpatory evidence,
after-discovered evidence, the
the imposition
imposition of a sentence greater the lawful
greater than the lawful

maximum,
maximum, or a proceeding
proceeding in
in atribunal without
without jurisdiction.
jurisdiction. Instead,
Instead, Appellant directly challenges
Appellant directly challenges

the sufficiency
sufficiency of the evidence to
to support
support his SVP classification
classification and seeks removal
removal of the collateral
collateral

guilty plea conviction
consequences of his guilty conviction under
under Megan's Law
Law II.
IL. Therefore,
Therefore, Appellant's
Appellant's first issue

as presented
presented is
is not claim under
not a cognizable claim under the PCRA.")
PCRA.") (citations
(citations omitted). Therefore, it is clear
omitted). Therefore,

that Appellant
Appellant may
may not
not raise
raise this claim
claim at this juncture.
juncture.

Second, notwithstanding
Second, notwithstanding the fact
fact that the claim
claim is
is improperly
improperly raised,
raised, the underlying
underlying claim
claim

is
is wholly without
without merit as well.
well. Appellant was convicted
Appellant was convicted of three counts of Endangering
Endangering the

Welfare of Children
Children in violation of 18
in violation Pa.C.S. §$ 4304,
18 Pa.C.S. 4304, which states,
states, in
in pertinent part:
part:

A parent,
parent, guardian
guardian or other person supervising
supervising the welfare
welfare of achild
child under 18
18 years
years
of age,
age, or aperson that employs or supervises
that employs such aperson,
supervises such person, commits an offense if if
he knowingly endangers the welfare of the child by violating
the child violating aduty of care,
care,
protection
protection or support.
support

added). The Pennsylvania Legislature has clarified
(emphasis added). clarified that:
that:

(2)A
A person
person acts knowingly with respect
knowingly with respect to
to a material
material element
element of an offense when:
when

(i) if
if the element
element involves the nature of his conduct
conduct or the attendant
attendant
circumstances,
circumstances, he is
is aware that
that his conduct
conduct is
is of that nature or that such
that such
circumstances exist; and

(ii) if the element
(ii) if element involves a result of his conduct,
conduct, he is
is aware that
that it
is
is practically certain that his conduct will cause such aresult.
practically certain result.

Id. § 302(b)(2). He
Id. $302(b)02). He asserts
asserts that
that this
this Court
Court found that this
found that this mens
mens rea
rea was
was not met when it stated,
not met stated, at

sentencing that
sentencing "[w]e know
that "[wle know that you did not
you did not set out
out to
to do this intentionally,
intentionally, at least Idon't think
think

you did." N.T. 2/7/2022, p.
N,T. 2/7/2022, p. 43. However,
However, Appellant's
Appellant's reliance in quote, which is taken
in this quote, out of
taken out

context,
context, is
is wholly
wholly misguided.
misguided. This
This Court
Court made
made the
the statement
statement when explaining its
when explaining its rationale
rationale for
for

Appellant's sentence and
Appellant's sentence and listing
listing the
the factors it considered
factors it considered to
to be in
in Appellant's
Appellant's favor.
favor. When
When read
read in
in

7
full context,
context, it is clear this Court
Court was
was referring
referring to the fact that
that Appellant did not
Appellant did not have unwavering

malicious intent
intent to
to viciously
viciously harm
harm his children.
children. It does not refer to the fact that
that Appellant
Appellant

knowingly neglected his children
children by failing
failing to
to meet
meet their basic needs for things such as food,
food, water,
water,

and hygiene.
hygiene. The
The evidence at
at trial proved beyond areasonable doubt
doubt that Appellant
Appellant knew
knew his

failure to provide such things would result in
in school
school aged children
children who
who were
were so weak they could
could

barely function
function and who
who were
were so developmentally delayed they lacked basic skills such as the

ability
ability to use atoilet.
toilet. The
The testimony and photographs
photographs admitted at
at trial
trial proved beyond areasonable

doubt
doubt that
that Appellant's children
children were
were so obviously infirm
infirm that
that even Appellant
Appellant felt the need to hide

the existence of his eighth child
child from
from authorities.
authorities. Therefore,
Therefore, a review
review of the record makes
makes clear

there is no doubt
doubt as to Appellant's guilt nor
nor is that
that guilt negated by Appellant's attempt
attempt to

misconstrue a statement
statement made
made by this Court
Court at
at sentencing.
sentencing. As
As such,
such, Appellant's claim
claim is meritless.
meritless.

H.
11 This
This Court
Court did not
not abuse
abuse its discretion when sentencing
sentencing Appellant.
Appellant.

Next,
Next, Appellant
Appellant argues
argues that
that this Court
Court abused its discretion
discretion when sentencing Appellant.
Appellant.

Again,
Again, this
this claim
claim is not
not only not
not cognizable under
under the PCRA,
PCRA, but
but it is wholly without
without merit
merit and

had been
been previously addressed and disposed of by both this Court
Court and the Superior
Superior Court
Court of

Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania.

First,
First, Pennsylvania appellate
appellate courts
courts have
have repeatedly held that
that "[r]equests for relief with

respect
respect to
to the discretionary aspects
aspects of sentence
sentence are not
not cognizable in
in PCRA proceedings."
proceedings."

Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.
v. Wrecks,
Wrecks, 934
934 A.2d
A.2d 1287,1289
1287, 1289 (Pa.
(Pa. Super.
Super. 2007).
2007). Thus,
Thus, as
as with Appellant's first
first

claim,
claim, this
this claim
claim is
is also
also improperly
improperly raised
raised in
in his
his PCRA
PCRA Petition.
Petition.

Second,
Second, not
not withstanding
withstanding this
this fatal
fatal defect,
defect, this Court
Court also addressed this claim
claim on direct
direct

appeal
appeal and
and its
its reasoning
reasoning was
was affirmed
affirmed and
and upheld
upheld by the
the Superior
Superior Court
Court of Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania. This
This

8
8
discussed at
law and its reasons for Appellant's sentence were discussed
relevant case law
Court's analysis of relevant

forth as follows:
23, 2022 Opinion and are set forth
in this Court's June 23,
length in follows:

discretionary aspects of sentence.
Appellant's last nine statements challenge the discretionary sentence. For
discussion, these nine allegations of error may
ease of discussion, consolidated into
may be consolidated into one
discretion when imposing
Court abused its discretion
whether this Court
issue: whether
encompassmg issue:
encompassing
sentence.
sentence.

review of adiscretionary sentencing
direct appellate review
right to direct
There is no absolute right
Commonwealth v.
also Commionwealth
9781(b); see also
Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9781(b);
claim. 42 Pa.C.S.A.
claim. Greene, 702 A.2d 547,
v. Greene, 547,
requirements before
meet the following two requirements
must meet
Appellant must
1997). Appellant
Super. 1997).
(Pa. Super.
551 (Pa.
551
challenges: ((1)
review his challenges:
will review
Court will
Superior Court
the Superior forth in
1) "set forth in his brief aconcise
relied upon for allowance of appeal
reasons relied
statement of reasons
statement respect to
appeal with respect to the
discretionary aspects of asentence" and (2) show
and (2) substantial question
show there is asubstantial question that
that
the sentence imposed is not not appropriate under under the sentencing statute. statute.
Commonwealth v. Pennington, 751 A.2d 212,
v. Pennington, 215-16 (Pa.
212, 215-16 2000). A
Super. 2000).
(Pa. Super.
advances acolorable argument
appellant advances
question exists only when the appellant
substantial question
substantial argument
that the sentencing judge's actions
.that were either:
actions were inconsistent with a specific
either: ((1) inconsistent
provision of the sentencing code or (2) contrary to the fundamental
or (2) fundamental normsnorms which
process. Commonwealth v.
underlie the sentencing process. Caldwell, 117
v. Caldwell, 763, 768
117 A.3d 763,
(Pa. Super. 2015) (quoting
(Pa. Super. 2015) (quoting Commonwealth v. Prisk,
v. Prisk, 13 A.3d 526,
526, 533 (Pa. Super.
(Pa. Super.
that abare challenge that
well-settled that
It is well-settled
2011)). It
2011)). trial court
that the trial court erred inin imposing
consecutive sentences does not substantial question..
not raise a substantial question. .C Commonwealth v.
ommonwealth v.
Moury, 992 A.2d 162,
Moury, 171-72 (Pa.
162, 171-72 Super. 2010).
(Pa. Super. 2010). Only in in extreme circumstances
circumstances
sentence, such as where
substantial sentence,
sentences raise asubstantial
will imposition of consecutive sentences
will where
sentence is
the aggregate sentence
the harsh, considering the nature of the crimes
is "unduly harsh, crimes and
imprisonment." Id.
the length of imprisonment."
the Id.

"[s]entencing is a matter
Ultimately, "[s]entencing
Ultimately, vested in
matter vested discretion of the
in the sound discretion
judge, and asentence will
sentencing judge,
sentencing not be disturbed on appeal
will not absent amanifest
appeal absent manifest
Commonwealth v.
of discretion." Commonwealth
abuse of Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736,
v. Antidormi, 760 (Pa.
736, 760 (Pa. Super.
Super.
"by reference to the record,
that "by
show that
must show
Appellant must
The Appellant
2014). The
2014). that the
record, that
court ignored or
sentencing court or misapplied the law, judgment for reasons
law, exercised its judgment reasons
will, or
or ill will,
bias or
prejudice, bias
partiality, prejudice,
of partiality, or arrived at manifestly unreasonable
at amanifestly
Commonwealth v.
decision." Commonwealth
decision." Anderson, 830
v. Anderson, A.2d 1013,
830 A.2d 1013, 1018 (Pa. Super. 2003)
(Pa. Super. 2003)
Commonwealth v.
(quoting Commonwealth
(quoting Rodda, 723
v. Rodda, A.2d 212,
723 A.2d (Pa. Super.
212, 214 (Pa. 1999). A
Super. 1999).
sentence of
sentence confinement must
of confinement must be "consistent with
be "consistent the protection
with the protection of the public, the
the public,
gravity of the offense as
gravity impact on the
as it related to the impact the life of the victim
victim and on the
community, and
community, the rehabilitative
and the needs of
rehabilitative needs the [Appellant]."
of the [Appellant]." 42 Pa. C.S. §§ 9721(b).
Pa.C.S. 9721(b).
A
A sentencing [Appellant's] potential for rehabilitation by
court may determine an [Appellant's]
court may determine an potential for rehabilitation
considering his
considering demeanor, apparent
his demeanor, remorse, manifestation
apparent remorse, social conscience,
manifestation of social conscience,
Commonwealth v.
agents. Commonwealth
enforcement agents.
law enforcement
with law
and cooperation with v. Begley,
Begley, 780 A.2d
Commonwealth v.
2001); Commonwealth
(Pa. 2001);
644 (Pa.
605, 644
605, Constantine, 478
v. Constantine, A.2d 39
478 A.2d (Pa. Super.
39 (Pa. Super.
Commonwealth v.
1984); Commonwealth
1984); Gallagher, 442
v. Gallagher, A.2d 820
442 A.2d (Pa. Super.
820 (Pa. Super. 1982).
1982).

9
9
When reviewing this Court's sentencing of Appellant,
Appellant, the Superior Court
Court will
will look
look
at (1)
at 1) the nature of circumstances of the offense and the history
history and characteristics
of the appellant;
appellant; (2) the opportunity of the sentencing court to observe the appellant
court to appellant
including any pre-sentence investigation;
investigation; (3) findings upon which the sentence was was
based; and (4)
based; and (4) the guidelines promulgated by the commission.
commission. 42 Pa.C. S. 9781(d).
Pa.C.S. § 978l(d).
Additionally,
Additionally, atat the time of sentencing,
sentencing, "the judge shall state on the record the
reasons
reasons for the sentence imposed." Pa.Pa. R.Crim.P.
R.Crim.P. 704.
704.

Here,
Here, Appellant's claimclaim that
that this Court
Court erred
erred in sentencing is meritless.
meritless. This Court
Court
found that
that the facts of this case were
were horrific and noted that that two of the witnesses,
witnesses,
the emergency room room physician (who (who worked with homeless and drug-addicted drug-addicted
persons
persons for years)
years) and the EMTEMT (who(who was
was acombat
combat medic in in the Middle East),
East),
adequately touched on the severity of the conditioncondition of the children
children when one said said
the neglect
neglect was
was one of the worst
worst cases he had ever seen and the other mentioned he
had to find an empty room room so he could break down and cry. cry. N.T.
N.T. 2/7/2022,
2/7/2022, pp.
pp. 42-
42-
43. Further,
43. Further, this Court
Court explained that
that the facts of this case were shocking and
pointed out
out that,
that, not
not only were
were Appellant's children
children significantly
significantly underweight
underweight and
malnourished,
malnourished, but but also Appellant's daughter
daughter could not not walk due to the neglect,
neglect,
Appellant's son,
son, who
who was
was nine years
years old atat the time,
time, wore
wore adiaper
diaper that
that was
was left on
so long that
that it could not
not be removed without
without ripping off his skin,
skin, and Appellant's
other
other daughter
daughter with cerebral
cerebral palsy required afeeding tube. tube. Id.
Id. at
at p.
p. 44.
44. Essentially,
Essentially,
Appellant
Appellant denied his children the basic necessities that that all
all children
children deserve:
deserve: food,
food,
health,
health, education,
education, and shelter.
shelter. Id.
Id. at
at p.
p. 45.
45.

Appallingly,
Appallingly, Appellant
Appellant offered nothing but but meaningless
meaningless excuses for his behavior.
behavior.
He
He attempted to blame
blame his poor
poor decisions
decisions on his children by saying things such as
one
one wanted to remain a baby,
baby, so hehe let her
her wear
wear diapers,
diapers, or that
that it was
was convenient
convenient
for
for L.D.
L.D. to
to wear
wear diapers
diapers because
because hehe had trouble making it to the bathroom,
bathroom, oror that
that
another was
another was so skinny because she does not
does not like to eat. Id. Appellant never
eat. Id. Appellant never took
responsibility
responsibility for the condition of his children.
children. In fact,
fact, the thorough pre-sentence
investigation report
report stated that
that "throughout
"throughout the investigation,
investigation, it's
it's apparent
apparent that
that
[Appellant]
[Appellant] lacks
lacks empathy oror remorse for
for the pain hehe inflicted
inflicted on the children." Id.
Id.
at p. 46. Further,
at p. 46. Further, the report stated:
report stated:

[Appellant]
[Appellant] made
made remarks
remarks thatthat showed his lack of insightinsight into his
children's
children's needs.
needs. Specifically,
Specifically, he he showed a lack of of insight
insight into
[N.D.]'s
[N.D.]'s cerebral
cerebral palsy,
palsy, stating
stating that,
that, because
because of her her cerebral
cerebral palsy,
palsy,
there's
there's nono norm
norm for for her
her to to reach
reach her
her milestones.
milestones. [Appellant]
[Appellant]
indicated
indicated that
that S.D.
S.D. likes
likes to
to act
act like
like ababy.
baby. It's
It's been
been documented in
her
her medical
medical files
files that
that she
she is
is developmentally
developmentally delayed and has has several
several
mental
mental illnesses.
illnesses. The
The doctor
doctor documented
documented in in his report
report his opinion
that
that [S.D.]'s
[S.D.]'s PTSD
PTSD is is the
the direct
direct result
result of
of the
the abuse
abuse she suffered as as
the
the hands
hands ofof her
her biological
biological parents.
parents. He
He also indicated
indicated in
in his report
report
that,
that, based
based on
on [S.D.]'s
[S.D.]'s account
account that
that she
she is
is aa `'victim
victim of torture.'
torture.'

10
10
Regarding
Regarding [L.D.],
[L.D.], [Appellant]
[Appellant] advised
advised that, instead of following
that, instead following the
medical doctors,
advice of medical doctors, he conducted an online search search to
determine whether
whether he needed surgery.
surgery

It's
It's important
important to note that
that [Appellant]
[Appellant] provided
provided answers that were
not
not truthful throughout
throughout the interview.
interview.

Id.
Id, at pp.
pp. 46-47.
46-47 It is
is clear that
that Appellant
Appellant has
has rationalized
rationalized his decisions and does
not
not believe he should be held
held accountable for the horrific children.
horrific conditions of his children.
Therefore, after taking into
Therefore, account the facts of the case,
into account case, Appellant's background
and need for rehabilitation,
rehabilitation, and the Sentencing Guidelines,
Guidelines, this Court
Court found the
Sentencing Guidelines to to be inappropriate and asentence of total confinement
confinement waswas
warranted. Id. at p.
warranted. Id, p. 48.
48. To sentence Appellant
Appellant to anything less would have
to anything
depreciated the seriousness of Appellant's
depreciated Appellant's crimes.
crimes. This Court
Court further clarified
clarified that
it "[did not]
it "[did not] know
know that anyone, when drafting
that anyone, drafting the guidelines,
guidelines, could
could have ever
ever
envisioned a factual scenario
envisioned scenario such as this, where children
children were so neglected
neglected that
grown men found it it difficult to maintain
maintain their composure when treating them and
treating them
taking
taking care of them It's apparent
them....It's apparent that those children
children were neglected. And, quite
neglected. And,
frankly,
frankly, whoever
whoever found them them probably
probably and most
most likely
likely saved their lives, could
lives, or could
have saved
saved their lives.
lives. That's how
how bad this
this was." Id.
Id, at pp.
pp. 48-49.
48-49.
Accordingly,
Accordingly, the reasons for sentencing were clearly outlined on the record,
clearly outlined record, despite
despite
Appellant's unfounded and perplexing
perplexing argument
argument to to the contrary. An
contrary. An aggregate
sentence of nine to
to twenty-one
twenty-one years in in a state
state correctional
correctional institution
institution was
was necessary
to
to rehabilitate Appellant
Appellant and this Court did not rely
Court did not rely on improper factors, as
improper factors,
Appellant asserts, but
Appellant asserts, but rather only needed to rely
rely on the egregious facts of the case,
case,
sentencing guidelines,
sentencing guidelines, and additional
and additional circumstances as noted above. Appellant's
Appellant's
averments that
averments that this Court
Court abused its discretion in
its discretion sentencing are meritless.
in sentencing meritless.

v, Dunkowski,
Commonwealth v. Dunkowski, CP-09-CR-0000225-2020,
CP-09.CR-0000225-2020, pp.
pp. 15-16 (Bucks Cty. June 23,
(Bucks Cry. 2022).
23, 2022).

Shortly thereafter,
Shortly thereafter, the Superior
Superior Court
Court of Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania agreed
agreed with
with this Court's reasoning
reasoning when it
it

held
held that:
that:

Immediately
Immediately prior to announcing the
to announcing judgment of sentence,
the judgment sentence, the trial court
trial court
meticulously detailed its
meticulously detailed its reasoning
reasoning for
for imposing
imposing the sentence, which
the sentence, which included
included aa
thorough discussion of the case and
thorough discussion and elicited
elicited a complete understanding
understanding of the
relevant
relevant sentencing factors as theythey pertained
pertained to Dunkowski.
Dunkowski. As stated
As the trial court stated
in
in its
its written
written opinion, "after taking taking into account the facts of the case, [[
into account
Dunkowski's]
Dunkowski's] background
background and need for rehabilitation,
rehabilitation, and the Sentencing
Sentencing
Guidelines,
Guidelines, this
this [c]ourt
[cJourt found
found the Sentencing Guidelines
the Sentencing Guidelines to be inappropriate
to be inappropriate and
and aa
sentence of total
total confinement
confinement waswas warranted."
warranted" The courtcourt further noted that
that "the
reasons for
for sentencing
sentencing were clearly outlined on the
clearly outlined he record, despite [Dunkowski's]
record, despite [Dunkowski's]
unfounded
unfounded and perplexing argument to
perplexing argument to the contrary." Upon
the contrary." review of the
Upon review the record,
record,
we agree.
we agree.

11
II
Therefore,
Therefore, we
we conclude the reasons the trialtrial court
court offered for the sentence imposed
were more
more than sufficient
sufficient to conclude that
that the court
court properly considered all relevant
relevant
factors in
in fashioning Dunkowski's sentence.
sentence. Also,
Also, because the trial court
court had been
fu11y
fully informed and relied
relied upon the presentence report,
report, we
we conclude the trial court
court
did
did not
not abuse its discretion
discretion in in creating the instant
instant sentence.
sentence. Accordingly,
Accordingly,
Dunkowski's
Dunkowski' s claim
claim that
that the trial
trial court
court failed
failed to consider
consider the appropriate factors in
in
imposing the sentence lacks-merit.
merit.

Commonwealth v.
v. Dunkowski,
Dunkowski, 304 A.3d 740
740 (Pa.
(Pa. Super.
Super. 2023)
2023) (citations
(citations omitted).
omitted). Therefore,
Therefore, it

is clear that
that this issue has
has been repeatedly addressed and dismissed.
dismissed. Appellant's most
most recent
recent

allegations in
in the instant
instant PCRA Petition
Petition are of no consequence.
consequence. Appellant's dissatisfaction
dissatisfaction with

his sentence is not
not a meritorious ground for relief,
relief, no matter
matter how
how many
many times he attempts
attempts to raise

the issue for review.
review.

M.
111 Trial
Trial Counsel
Counsel was
was not his representation of
not ineffective in his ofAppellant
Appellant during
during trial
trial or on direct
direct
appeal.
appeal.

Lastly,
Lastly, Appellant
Appellant asserts that
that his Trial
Trial Counsel,
Counsel, Brian McBeth,
McBeth, Esquire
Esquire (hereinafter
(hereinafter "Trial
"Trial

Counsel''),
Counsel"), was
was ineffective for failing to:
to: ((1) "move
"move for
for a
a dismissal
dismissal of the
the indictment
indictment and conviction

due
due to the judge's comments
comments at
at sentencing...";
sentencing ... "; (2)
(2) interview
interview Appellant's
Appellant's children;
children; and
and (3)
(3) address
address

the issues
issues in the instant
instant PCRA Petition on direct
direct appeal.
appeal. For
For the reasons
reasons discussed below,
below,

Appellant's assertions
assertions are wholly without
without merit.
merit.

Under
Under the present
present facts,
facts, to be eligible for
for PCRA
PCRA relief,
relief, Appellant
Appellant must
must establish by a

preponderance of
of the evidence that
that his
his conviction resulted
resulted from
from "[]neffective
"[i]neffective assistance
assistance of

counsel,
counsel, which
which in
in the
the circumstances
circumstances of
of the
the particular
particular case,
case, so
so undermined
undermined the
the truth-determining
truth-determining

process
process that
that no
no reliable
reliable adjudication
adjudication of
of guilt
guilt or
or innocence
innocence could
could have
have taken
taken place."
place." 42
42 Pa.C.S.A
Pa.C.S.A §§

9543(a)(2)(ii).
9543(a)(2)(ii).

In
In reviewing
reviewing an
an ineffective
ineffective assistance
assistance of
of counsel
counsel claim,
claim, a
a court
court presumes
presumes that
that counsel
counsel was
was

effective.
effective. Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.
v. Fletcher,
Fletcher, 986
986 A.2d
A.2d 759,
759, 772
772 (Pa.
(Pa. 2009).
2009). In
In order
order to
to overcome
overcome this
this

presumption,
presumption, an
an appellant
appellant has
has the
the burden
burden of
of showing
showing that
that ((1) the
the underlying
underlying claim is of
claim is of arguable
arguable

12
12
merit;
merit; (2)
(2) counsel's
counsel's course
course of
of conduct
conduct was
was without
without a
a reasonable
reasonable basis
basis designed
designed to
to effectuate his
his

client's interest;
interest; and (3)
(3) he was
was prejudiced
prejudiced by
by counsel's ineffectiveness. Commonwealth v.
ineffectiveness. Commonwealth v. Pierce,
Pierce,

527 A.2d
527 973, 975 (Pa.
A.24 973,975 (Pa. 1987); see Commonwealth
1987); see Commonwealthv.
v. Walls,
Walls, 993 A.2d 289,
993 A.2d (Pa. Super.
296 (Pa.
289, 296 Super. 2010)
2010)

(quoting
(quoting Commonwealth v.
v. Wallace,
Wallace, 724 A.2d 916,
916, 921
921 (Pa.
(Pa. 1999)).
1999)). Appellant
Appellant must
must individually
individually

discuss and prove
discuss and each prong
prove each prong of the Pierce test
of the test to
to be entitled
entitled to
to relief. Commonwealth v.
relief. Commonwealth v, Williams,
Williams,

980 A.2d 510,
510, 520 (Pa.
(Pa. 2009).
2009). Failing
Failing to
to meet
meet any prong of the Pierce test
any prong test defeats an

ineffectiveness claim.
claim. Id.
Id.

Additionally,
Additionally, "[c]ounsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing
"[counsel cannot failing to raise a meritless
meritless

claim." Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.
v, Fears,
Fears, 86
86 A.3d
A.3d 795,
795, 804
804 (Pa.
(Pa. 2014).
2014). Moreover,
Moreover, counsel's
counsel's representation
representation

does not
not lack
lack a reasonable
reasonable basis
basis if
if the
the chosen course
course of strategy
strategy or tactics
tactics "had
"had some
some reasonable
reasonable

basis designed
designed to
to effectuate his client's
client's interests.
interests. Courts should not
not deem
deem counsel's strategy
strategy or
or

tactics
tactics unreasonable
unreasonable unless
unless it can be concluded
it can concluded that
that an alternative not
an alternative chosen offered
not chosen offered a
a potential
potential

for
for success substantially
substantially greater
greater than
than the course actually
actually pursued."
pursued." Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.
v, Koehler,
Koehler, 36
36

A.3d 121, 132 (Pa. 2012).
(Pa. 2012)

A
A Court
Court will
will not
not find
find prejudice
prejudice unless
unless aa defendant
defendant proves
proves that
that there
there is
is aa "reasonable
"reasonable

probability
probability that
that but
but for
for counsel's
counsel's unprofessional
unprofessional errors,
errors, the result
result of
of the
the proceeding
proceeding would
would have
have

been different." Walls,
Walls, 993 A.2d
A.2d at 296
296 (quoting
(quoting Strickland
Strickland v.
v. Washington,
Washington, 466 U.S.
U.S. 668,
668, 694

(1984)). Appellant
(1984)). Appellant must
must show
show that "counsel's errors
that "counsel's errors were
were `'so
so serious
serious as
as to deprive the defendant
to deprive defendant

of a fair trial, atrial whose result is
is reliable."'Commonwealth
Commonwealth v. Simpson, 66 A.3d 253,
v, Simpson, 253, 277
277 (Pa.
(Pa.

2013) (quoting
2013) Harrington v.
(quoting Harrington y, Richter,
Richter, 562 U.S.
U.S. 86 (2011)
(2011) (citations omitted)). A claim
(citations omitted)). claim of

ineffectiveness may
may be denied
denied where an Appellant's
Appellant's evidence fails to meet
meet any of these prongs.
prongs.

Commonwealth v.
Commonwealth v. Rainey,
Rainey, 928
928 A.2d
A.2d 215,
215, 224
224 (Pa.
(Pa. 2007).
2007)

13
13
a. Trial
a. Trial Counsel
Counsel was
was not
not ineffective
ineffective for failing
failing to request
request this Court
Court dismiss
dismiss the charges
charges
against Appellant.
Appellant.

Appellant Trial Counsel
Appellant avers Trial Counsel should
should have moved for the dismissal
dismissal of the charges
charges at

Appellant's sentencing due to
to this Court's comments
comments on his mens
mens rea
rea as outlined above but
but fails

to demonstrate his argument
to argument meets
meets even one of the three prongs
prongs of the test in Pierce. First,
test outlined in First,

Appellant's claim
claim has
has no
no merit.
merit. While
While this
this Court
Court thoroughly
thoroughly discussed
discussed this
this issue
issue when
when analyzing
analyzing

Appellant's sufficiency
sufficiency of the evidence claim,
claim, the gist
gist of the matter is
is that
that Appellant
Appellant is
is taking
taking this

comments out
Court's comments out of context
context to
to construe them
them as something
something they
they are not. Second, as
not. Second, as there
there was
was

no merit
merit to the argument
argument that
that the charges should
should be dismissed based on this Court's remarks
remarks at

sentencing, Appellant
sentencing, Appellant cannot
cannot show
show that
that Trial
Trial Counsel
Counsel was
was unreasonable
unreasonable for
for failing
failing to
to raise
raise the
the

issue.
issue. Third,
Third, Appellant
Appellant does not
not even attempt
attempt to
to explain
explain how
how Trial
Trial Counsel's
Counsel's failure
failure to
to raise
raise a
a

meritless argument
argument at
at trial prejudiced
prejudiced Appellant.
Appellant. Therefore,
Therefore, it is clear that
that Appellant's claim is
Appellant's claim

illogical,
illogical, undeveloped,
undeveloped, and
and wholly
wholly without merit.
without merit.

b. Trial Counsel
b. Trial Counsel was
was not
not ineffective
ineffective for failing
failing to present
present two of Appellant's children
children as
witnesses at trial.
trial.

Next,
Next, Appellant
Appellant argues
argues that Trial Counsel
that Trial Counsel was
was ineffective for failing
failing to
to interview
interview and

present
present two of his children
children who
who were not
not victims in
in the instant
instant matter
matter as witnesses
witnesses in
in his case.
case

Again,
Again, Appellant's claim fails
Appellant's claim fails to
to meet
meet any
any prong
prong of
of the
the Pierce test
test and
and is
is entirely
entirely meritless.
meritless

Initially,
Initially, this Court
Court notes that Appellant
Appellant entirely
entirely fails
fails to develop this claim.
claim. Undeveloped'
Undeveloped

claims are
are deemed waived
waived and
and unreviewable
unreviewable on appeal. See Commonwealth
on appeal. Commonwealth v.
v, Jackson,
Jackson, 431
431 A.2d
A.2d

944, 945 n.
944,945 n. 11(Pa.
(Pa. 1981)
1) (where ineffectiveness claim
claim was
was listed
listed in
in statement
statement of questions,
questions, but
but not
not

addressed in
in argument section of brief,
argument section brief, claim
claim was
was waived;
waived; waiver
waiver is
is warranted because
because "Appellant
"Appellant

has
has failed
failed to
to guide
guide this
this Court
Court as to
to the
the facts
facts or applicable
applicable law").
law"). See
See also
also Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.
y

Marrero,
Marrero, 748
748 A.2d
A.2d 202,
202, 204-05
204-05 (Pa.
(Pa. 2000)
2000) (Nigro,
(Nigro, J.,
J, Concurring)
Concurring) (same);
(same); Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.
y

14
Williams,
Williams, 732 A.2d
A.2d 1167,
1167, 1175
1175 (Pa.
(Pa. 1999)
1999) (recognizing
(recognizing "unavailability
"unavailability of relief
relief based
based upon
upon

undeveloped claims for which insufficient arguments are presented
presented on appeal");
appeal"); Commonwealth
Commonwealth

v. LaCava, 666
y.Lacava, 666 A.2d
A.24 221, 229 n.
221,229 n. 99 (Pa.
(Pa. 1995)
1995) (claim mentioned in
(claim mentioned statement of
in statement of questions
questions in
in direct
direct

capital appeal,
capital appeal, but
but not
not mentioned again or
mentioned again or developed
developed in
in argument
argument section of brief
section of brief is
is waived);
waived);

Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.
v, Ragan,
Ragan, 645 A.2d
A.2d 811, 828 (Pa.
(Pa. 1994)
1994) (boilerplate allegation provides
(boilerplate allegation provides no
no basis
basis

for
for relief). Therefore, this
relief). Therefore, Court believes
this Court believes Appellant's
Appellant's claim
claim is
is waived.
waived.

However,
However, while
while this Court believes
this Court believes the argument is
the argument is waived,
waived, it
it will
will nevertheless address
nevertheless address

and dismiss the
the claim
claim on
on the
the merits.
merits. Essentially,
Essentially, Appellant
Appellant believes
believes that
that Trial
Trial Counsel's failure
failure to
to

call his two
call his minor children,
two minor children, who
who were
were not
not included
included as victims in
as victims the instant
in the instant matter, as witnesses
matter, as witnesses in
in

Appellant's defense resulted
Appellant's defense resulted in
in ineffective representation. This
ineffective representation. Court does
This Court does not
not agree.
agree.

Appellant attached two
Appellant attached two unsigned,
unsigned, unverified
unverified "emails"
emails" to
to his
his Amended
Amended PCRA
PCRA Petition
Petition that
that

are purportedly authored
are purportedly authored by
by his
his two
two (then
(then minor)
minor) children,
children, J.D. and M.D..
JD. and In sum,
M.D.. In sum, the
the letters
letters state
state

that
that Appellant
Appellant was
was merely trying
trying to do his best
best amid serious financial
financial troubles and that they
they feel
feel

the sentence
the sentence imposed
imposed by
by this
this Court
Court is too severe.
is too severe. In
In his
his Amended
Amended PCRA
PCRA Petition,
Petition, Appellant argues
Appellant argues

that these letters prove
prove Trial Counsel should
Trial Counsel should have called
called J.D.
JD. and M.D.
M.D. as witnesses.
witnesses. However,
However,

Appellant
Appellant does address the
the fact
fact that
that neither J.D. nor
neither I.D. nor M.D.
M.D. were
were in
in the vehicle
vehicle when
when the
the Victims
Victims

were found
found and Appellant
Appellant was
was arrested.
arrested. He
He does not
not address the fact
fact that
that they
they have no
no first-hand

knowledge of
knowledge of the situation as
the situation as they
they were
were both
both staying with friends
staying with friends at
at the
the time
time (as
(as they explain in
they explain in

their
their letters).
letters). In
In fact,
fact, Appellant
Appellant even states
states that Trial
Trial Counsel
Counsel decided
decided not
not to call
call them
them as
as witnesses
witnesses

as they "would
"would be a liability,
liability, and the D.A.
D.A. would
would take
take them
them apart."
apart." Ironically,
Ironically, Appellant
Appellant does not
not

even realize that
even realize that his own argument
his own argument undermines
undermines his claim. It
his claim. It is clear that
is clear if Appellant's
even if
that even Appellant's claim
claim

had merit
merit (which
(which this Court
Court believes it
it does not),
not), Trial
Trial Counsel
Counsel had areasonable basis
basis to
to decline

to present
to J.D. and
present I.D, and M.D. as witnesses.
M.D. as witnesses. Even
Even if they were
if they presented, the
were presented, Commonwealth could
the Commonwealth could have
have

15
easily
easily challenged and discredited
discredited their testimony with the plethora of photographs and statements

from
from individuals who
who had firsthand
firsthand knowledge of the incident
incident as they
they were actually
actually present
present at the

scene of the crime.
crime.

Lastly, Appellant
Lastly, Appellant is unable to demonstrate that
that he was prejudiced by Trial Counsel's
was prejudiced

conduct.
conduct. When
When raising afailure to call apotential
potential witness claim,
claim, the PCRA petitioner satisfies the

performance and prejudice requirements
requirements of the Strickland test by establishing that:
that:

(1) the witness existed;
existed; (2)
(2) the witness was
was available to testify
testify for the defense;
defense; (3)
(3)
counsel
counsel knew
knew of,
of, or should have known of, of, the existence of the witness;
witness; (4)
(4) the
witness was
was willing to testify
testify for the defense;
defense; and
and (5)
(5) the absence of the testimony
of the witness was
was so prejudicial
prejudicial as to have denied the defendant
defendant afair trial.
trial.

Commonwealth v.
y. Washington,
Washington, 927 A.2d 586,
586, 599 (Pa.
(Pa. 2007).
2007). To
To demonstrate Strickland

prejudice,
prejudice, the PCRA petitioner "must
"must show
show how
how the uncalled witnesses'
witnesses' testimony would have

been beneficial
beneficial under
under the circumstances of the case." Commonwealth v.
v. Gibson,
Gibson, 951 A.2d 1110,
1110,

1134 (Pa.
(Pa. 2008);
2008); see also Commonwealth v.
v. Chmiel,
Chmiel, 889 A.2d 501,
501, 546 (Pa.
(Pa. 2005)
2005).("Trial
("Trial

counsel's failure to call
call aparticular
particular witness
witness does
does not
not constitute ineffective assistance without
without some
some

showing that
that the absent
absent witness'
witness' testimony
testimony would
would have
have been beneficial
beneficial or
or helpful
helpful in
in establishing

the asserted defense. "). Here,
defense."). Here, it is obvious
obvious that,
that, not
not only would J.D.
J.D. and M.D.'s testimony have
have

not
not helped Appellant,
Appellant, it would have
have most
most likely actually hurt
hurt his defense.
defense. Therefore,
Therefore, this claim
claim

does
does not
not afford Appellant
Appellant any relief.
relief.

c.
c. Trial
Trial Counsel
Counsel was
was not
not ineffective
ineffective on direct
direct appeal.
appeal.

Lastly,
Lastly, Appellant
Appellant attempts
attempts to
to raise
raise what
what he
he calls a "layered ineffectiveness issue,"but
but what
what

is
is actually
actually just
just Appellant
Appellant feeling
feeling upset
upset that
that the
the Superior
Superior Court
Court of Pennsylvania dismissed his direct
direct

appeal.
appeal. Essentially,
Essentially, because
because the
the claims
claims Trial
Trial Counsel
Counsel raised
raised on direct
direct appeal
appeal were
were not
not found to
to be
be

meritorious,
meritorious, Appellant
Appellant believes
believes that
that had
had Trial
Trial Counsel
Counsel raised any
any of the
the additional
additional claims
claims raised
raised

in
in the
the instant
instant matter,
matter, he
he would
would have
have been
been successful.
successful. He
He provides
provides no
no further
further insight
insight or
or analysis
analysis as
as

16
16
to
to how
how he
he came to
to such a conclusion and this Court cannot
this Court cannot fathom
fathom the same.
same, "It
"[t is well-settled that
is well-settled that

counsel may
counsel may not
not be deemed ineffective
be deemed ineffective for
for failing
failing to
to raise
raise a
a meritless claim." Commonwealth
meritless claim." Commonwealth v.
v,

Hubbard, 372
Hubbard, 372 A.2d
A.2d 687
687 (Pa.
(Pa, 1977).
1977). Put simply, it
Put simply, it appears
appears that
that Appellant
Appellant is
is merely
merely unhappy
unhappy with
with

his
his sentence and
and is
is attempting
attempting to conjure up
to conjure up ineffective
ineffective assistance
assistance of counsel claims
of counsel claims in
in hopes
hopes that

either this Court or the Superior
this Court Superior Court
Court will
will side
side with
with him
him and overturn his
and overturn conviction. However,
his conviction. However,

this Court is
this Court is not
not fooled.
fooled. Appellant
Appellant was
was convicted of Endangering the Welfare of Children after a

fair
fair trial
trial with competent Trial Counsel.
with competent Counsel. Any argument to
Any argument to the contrary
contrary is
is belied
belied by
by the record
record and

is meritless.
meritless.

CONCLUSION
CONCLUSION

For
For the foregoing
foregoing reasons, Court respectfully
reasons, this Court respectfully requests
requests the Superior Court
Court affirm
affirm this

Court's February 7, 2022
February 7, Judgment of
2022 Judgment of Sentence

Date ;
f, 1 L- CE H. BAT .' AN, JR., J.
.

Sl:U4103
$10030: -.0 ;4'_ .
AINf100
A1Nn03 Q NY 3-1

sS
S9 .Z- d 0Z
0zNHfir SIN
SL ut
E l ,

G3A1:
03A130-

17
17