(1)"Where the Trial Court erred by precluding Addie Brice,Civil Suit statement
and making that statement not to be part of the evidence in this case.
This Court, will see the Commonwealth witness Ms. Brice, Civil Suit
statement filed in Small Claims Court before the Commonwealth brough
criminal charge against Pratt.
Ms. Brice, claims the same dollars amount, In both criminal and civil cases:
Brice stated that she borrowed money to Mr. Pratt, the money
stolen and the Commonwealth — Judge refused to bring this crucial evidence
on the records.was never
The District Attorney, Trail Counsel Steinberg, The Lower Court, Judge
Mahon and the States Trooper knew exactly about the Civil Complaint from
the Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania witness Addie Bryce, where the first
statement contradicts the second statement in both Civil - Criminal
Proceedings and other evidence was withheld:
such as Addie Bryce Stepfather a friend of the Judge that preside over my case but
the Court did not say anything about this evidence. APPENDICES-1

(2)-THE Trail Court, erred because the, JUDGEMENT OF SENTENCE IS
MISSING, the SENTENCING SHEETS ARE ILEGAL AND MISSING TIME

STAMP and THE PLEA COUQUIES ARE MISSSING TIME STAMP
PA.R.A.P 341(a)(1) Pa.R.A.P 1925(b)., see,
APPENDICES-2

(3)-The PCRA Court erroneously Ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on
Pratt claim because Pratt initial probationary sentence has expired while Pratt
PCRA Petition was pending, that is not truth.
Pratt is on Parole - supervised released by the Middle District Court Of
Pennsylvania - DHS.
Commonwealth v. Smith. 17 A.3d 873 (Pa. 2011).
Commonwealth v. Ahlhorn. 699 A.2d 718, 720 (Pa. 1997).
Commonwealth v. Martin. 832 a.2d 1141 (Pa. Super. 2003).
APPENDICES-3.

(4)-The Trail Court erred, when the Court refused to consider Trail Attorney
Steinberg, ("Affirmation Letter acknowledgement of incompetence of
ineffective assistance of counsel "), that all parties, Judge Mahon, The District
Attorney and the Court did not advise Pratt of Immigration doing Court Processing
and at the time of the alleged plea. See Plea Transcript.
See, the Supreme Court Of The United States ruling-Decision in the cases of:
See, Jae Lee V. United States.
See, Padilla v. Kentucky,
See, Strickland v. Washington (1984 466 U.S. 668, 695, Hill v. Lockhart, (1985)

474 U.S. 52.
Pratt was robbed of the right that was given to these three - 3, cases above and the
same right should be applied to Pratt and all these cases above were overturn.
Plea Counsel, the District Attorney, Judge Mahon and the Courts failure to
provide clear warnings about the deportation penalties associated with Pratt alleged
guilty plea fell below the recognized standard of professional competence under
the

Whether the trial court erred by precluding Addie Brice's civil suit statement from evidence and improperly withholding crucial testimony