Com. v. Williams, A.
Com. v. Williams, A. No. 411 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 14, 2017Background
- Anthony S. Williams was convicted by jury (March 1, 2011) of third-degree murder and possession of an instrument of crime for a 2008 shooting; sentenced to 18–36 years plus 2½–5 years consecutive. Appellate review affirmed; PA Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal.
- Williams filed a timely pro se PCRA petition (June 4, 2014) with supplements; counsel was appointed and later filed a Turner/Finley (no-merit) letter and motion to withdraw.
- The PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice proposing dismissal and, after Williams’s pro se responses, dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing (Jan. 19, 2016) and permitted counsel to withdraw.
- Williams appealed pro se, asserting ineffective assistance by trial, appellate, and PCRA counsel, and arguing the PCRA court erred by dismissing without a hearing and by relying on counsel’s no-merit letter.
- The Superior Court reviewed the record, deferred to the PCRA court’s factual findings, and affirmed, concluding Williams failed to prove any prong of the ineffectiveness test and that no hearing was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Williams) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial counsel ineffective for advising Williams not to testify due to juvenile adjudication | Counsel gave erroneous advice, depriving Williams of his right to testify and to a fair trial | Claim was waived or counsel had reasonable basis; Williams knowingly declined to call witnesses or testify; no prejudice shown | Denied — claim waived/meritless; no prejudice |
| Trial counsel ineffective for failing to investigate/call character witnesses | Failure to call witnesses was unreasonable and prejudicial | Counsel made a strategic decision with reasonable basis; proposed witnesses would not have provided admissible, material evidence | Denied — strategic decision reasonable; no prejudice |
| Trial counsel ineffective for not objecting to jury-coercion instruction (court statement about deliberation time) | Court’s supplemental instruction coerced jury; counsel should have objected | Trial court’s remark was a proper exercise of discretion and not coercive after five-day trial/two hours deliberation | Denied — no coercion; no ineffectiveness |
| PCRA/appellate counsel ineffective for failing to raise trial-counsel claims and for filing a no-merit letter | PCRA counsel perfunctory; failure to expand/amend petition forfeited meaningful collateral review | Underlying trial-counsel claims lacked merit, so appellate/PCRA counsel’s performance cannot satisfy ineffectiveness prongs | Denied — layered-ineffectiveness fails because underlying claims lack merit |
| PCRA court erred by dismissing without evidentiary hearing and by ‘‘wholesale adoption’’ of no-merit letter | Court relied on counsel’s letter and gave inadequate reasons in Rule 907 notice; hearing required | Court independently reviewed the record, provided a Rule 907 notice, and Williams had opportunity to respond; no genuine factual dispute requiring a hearing | Denied — no hearing required; notice adequate and Williams not prejudiced |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Fears, 86 A.3d 795 (Pa. 2014) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
- Commonwealth v. Boyd, 923 A.2d 513 (Pa. Super. 2007) (deference to PCRA court’s factual findings)
- Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2012) (no deference to legal conclusions)
- Commonwealth v. Rivera, 10 A.3d 1276 (Pa. Super. 2010) (presumption counsel effective; burden on petitioner)
- Commonwealth v. Fulton, 830 A.2d 567 (Pa. 2003) (three-part ineffectiveness test)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 811 A.2d 994 (Pa. 2002) (failure to satisfy any prong defeats ineffectiveness claim)
- Commonwealth v. McGill, 832 A.2d 1014 (Pa. 2003) (requirements for layered ineffectiveness claims)
- Commonwealth v. Marrero, 748 A.2d 202 (Pa. 2000) (procedural pleading requirements referenced in layered claims)
- Commonwealth v. Baumhammers, 92 A.3d 708 (Pa. 2014) (PCRA hearing not required where record shows no genuine issues)
- Commonwealth v. Rykard, 55 A.3d 1177 (Pa. Super. 2012) (purpose of Rule 907 notice to allow amendment)
- Commonwealth v. Marion, 981 A.2d 230 (Pa. Super. 2009) (trial judge’s direction to continue deliberations reviewed for coercion)
- Commonwealth v. Greer, 951 A.2d 346 (Pa. 2008) (jury-direction/coercion principles)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 732 A.2d 1167 (Pa. 1999) (Williams II) (courts must articulate independent reasons when dismissing following an advocate’s brief in capital cases)
- Commonwealth v. Feighery, 661 A.2d 437 (Pa. Super. 1995) (Turner/Finley letter insufficient alone to satisfy Rule 907 notice)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 942 A.2d 903 (Pa. Super. 2008) (PCRA hearing unnecessary if record resolves issues)