Com. v. Williams, E.
Com. v. Williams, E. No. 310 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 18, 2017Background
- On Dec. 24, 2013 Trooper Colon stopped Eric R. Williams for expired registration; Trooper discovered Williams was driving with a suspended license and had a significant criminal history.
- After an on-scene pat-down and further re-engagement, Williams gave verbal and written consent to search his SUV; officers found a Glock .40, an 11‑round magazine under the driver’s seat, and an extended 30‑round magazine in the console.
- Williams was charged with Possession of a Firearm Prohibited and Firearms Not to be Carried Without a License; he was convicted after a stipulated non‑jury trial and sentenced (5–10 years on Count 1, probation on Count 2).
- Williams appealed; the Superior Court affirmed on Dec. 22, 2015. He then filed PCRA petitions (initial pro se petition dismissed without prejudice as premature; reinstated and counsel appointed for a timely petition).
- PCRA counsel filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit/withdrawal petition; the PCRA court issued Rule 907 notice and ultimately dismissed Williams’s PCRA petition without an evidentiary hearing on Jan. 4, 2017.
- Williams appealed pro se, raising claims of untimeliness/due process, multiple ineffective assistance of counsel theories (trial, direct‑appeal, and PCRA counsel), and a claim of fraud on the court; the Superior Court affirmed the PCRA dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Williams’ Argument | Commonwealth’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / dismissal of first PCRA filing | PCRA court violated due process by dismissing his Jan. 19, 2016 petition as untimely | Petition was dismissed without prejudice as prematurely filed while direct appeal period remained open; reinstated Feb. 1, 2016 | Dismissal was proper as without prejudice; petition later reinstated — no due process violation found |
| Jury‑waiver counsel ineffective | Malloy failed to protect Williams’ right to a jury trial; waiver was invalid | Waiver colloquy was extensive, Williams confirmed voluntariness and counsel advice; written waiver signed | Waiver valid; claim meritless and barred by Williams’ colloquy statements |
| Failure to file post‑sentence motion | Trial counsel ignored request to file post‑sentence motion to reconsider harsh sentence | No record of such a request; counsel offered to file a timely appeal; sentencing was within guideline range | No prejudice shown under Reaves standard; claim denied |
| Sufficiency / suppression (trial/appeal counsel ineffective) | Counsel should have challenged legality of re‑engagement/detention and search; suppression error | Suppression issue was litigated; Williams consented (verbal and written); Superior Court previously rejected suppression challenge | Claim fails — suppression was addressed on the merits and Court found reasonable suspicion to re‑engage and lawful consent search |
| PCRA counsel’s Turner/Finley withdrawal ineffective | Galloway improperly filed no‑merit letter instead of amended PCRA petition; pro se claims had merit | Counsel complied with Turner/Finley requirements; pro se claims were frivolous; PCRA court found no meritorious issues | Withdrawal and no‑merit procedure appropriate; claims lacked merit |
| Fraud on the court / new MVR claim | Trial counsel and prosecutor misrepresented who found the gun; video would show a second trooper discovered firearm; PCRA counsel failed to investigate | Claim was not raised in the petition (waived); suppression record and MVR were already before court; no evidence supporting different trooper finding | Waived or meritless; PCRA court not required to address new, unamended claims; no relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Poplawski, 852 A.2d 323 (Pa. Super. 2004) (standard for review of PCRA denial and counsel presumed effective)
- Commonwealth v. Malloy, 856 A.2d 767 (Pa. 2004) (ineffectiveness test and burden on defendant)
- Commonwealth v. Reaves, 923 A.2d 1119 (Pa. 2007) (actual‑prejudice standard for failure to file post‑sentence motions)
- Commonwealth v. Barnes, 687 A.2d 1163 (Pa. Super. 1996) (statements in colloquy bind defendant; cannot later contradict)
- Commonwealth v. Rykard, 55 A.3d 1177 (Pa. Super. 2012) (new claims after Rule 907 require leave to amend; otherwise waived)
- Commonwealth v. Reed, 971 A.2d 1216 (Pa. 2009) (deficient appellate brief does not automatically establish prejudice under Cronic)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedures for counsel withdrawal from frivolous PCRA claims)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (Turner/Finley withdrawal procedure for PCRA counsel)