Appellant argued that (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions for first degree murder, (2) his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the admission of crime scene photographs, (3) his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to hire an expert in firearms to testify on behalf of Appellant, (3) the cumulative impact of the multiple instances of counsel deprived Appellant of due process rights, and (4) the PCRA court erred in dismissing Appellant's PCRA petition without an evidentiary hearing. The Court found all claims meritless.