Com. v. Williams, A., 1323 WDA 2020

Child A.W., age 3, was last seen at her grandmother’s home; about 1.5 hours later her body was found ~3 miles away; autopsy: asphyxiation, multiple contusions, petechial hemorrhages; toxicology negative; manner ruled homicide.
Paper clips matching multi-colored clips found near the body and later in Williams’ car; watermelon residue on the shoulder of Williams’ work shirt; Williams’ shoes were muddy when she returned.
Cell‑tower data and surveillance placed a vehicle matching Williams’ car in the area where the body was found; Williams initially told family she was at work and failed to respond promptly to many calls/texts after the child went missing.
Williams was convicted by a jury of third‑degree murder, abuse of corpse, and tampering; sentenced to 20–40 years for third‑degree murder; direct appeal counsel abandoned a sufficiency challenge to malice; Superior Court affirmed; PA Supreme Court denied review.
Williams filed a PCRA petition arguing appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising a sufficiency challenge to malice, contending the medical testimony did not preclude accidental asphyxiation and the circumstantial evidence was equally consistent with innocence.
The PCRA court dismissed the petition; the Superior Court affirmed, holding the sufficiency claim lacked merit and counsel was not ineffective.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Williams)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth)	Held
Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not challenging sufficiency of evidence of malice for third‑degree murder	Dr. Shakir’s cause/manner testimony was allegedly "patently false" for not acknowledging accidental asphyxiation; other evidence (watermelon, paperclips) equally supports accidental death; appellate counsel’s omission prejudiced Williams	The claim is actually a weight/qualitative argument (waived); sufficiency claim is meritless because circumstantial evidence (identification, phone ping, surveillance, physical evidence, consciousness of guilt) permitted inference of malice; counsel not ineffective for abandoning a meritless claim	Affirmed: counsel not ineffective; sufficiency challenge to malice fails because the evidence, viewed favorably to the Commonwealth, reasonably supports malice and conviction for third‑degree murder

Commonwealth v. Fears, 86 A.3d 795 (Pa. 2014) (PCRA review standards and counsel ineffectiveness overview)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance of counsel test; prejudice standard)
Commonwealth v. Ventura, 975 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. 2009) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
Commonwealth v. Santana, 333 A.2d 876 (Pa. 1975) (testimony contradicted by incontrovertible physical facts may be disregarded)
Commonwealth v. Knox, 219 A.3d 186 (Pa. Super. 2019) (elements of third‑degree murder require proof of malice)
Commonwealth v. Truong, 36 A.3d 592 (Pa. Super. 2012) (malice may be inferred from totality of circumstances)