Com. v. Williams, G.
Com. v. Williams, G. No. 288 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 29, 2017Background
- In March 2012 police responded to a domestic disturbance at Gloria Soto’s apartment; shots were fired into a bedroom wall and Soto sustained a forehead injury. A Mauser rifle and ammunition were recovered from a dresser in the apartment.
- Gary Williams (defendant) was tried in state court for aggravated assault, terroristic threats, simple assault, recklessly endangering another, harassment, discharging a firearm, and related counts; a jury convicted on multiple counts.
- Immediately after the verdict Williams pleaded guilty to Persons Not to Possess Firearms (18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(a)(1)). He had earlier been convicted in federal court (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) and sentenced in August 2014.
- At sentencing (Jan. 26, 2016) Williams sought to withdraw his firearm guilty plea and raised multiple challenges (sufficiency, evidentiary rulings, witness competency/taint, Grazier waiver-of-counsel issues, and sentencing credit). The trial court denied relief, sentenced Williams to an aggregate term (79–180 months) and awarded credit for custody time up to Aug. 28, 2014.
- The Superior Court affirmed the convictions and many rulings, denied the motion to change counsel, but vacated the judgment of sentence solely to remand for entry of an amended sentencing order awarding additional credit for time served between Aug. 28, 2014 (federal sentencing) and Jan. 26, 2016 (state sentencing).
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth / Plaintiff Argument | Williams / Defendant Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence (aggravated assault, terroristic threats, simple assault, REAP) | Evidence (victim testimony, bullet hole, recovered rifle/ammo, letters urging recantation) permits reasonable inferences supporting convictions when viewed for the Commonwealth. | Argues victim recanted or could not identify object used; son was not in the room; threats did not reference son; evidence insufficient to show deadly weapon or danger to son. | Affirmed: evidence sufficient on all challenged counts when viewed in light most favorable to the Commonwealth. |
| Admission of prior domestic-abuse evidence (Pa.R.E. 404(b)) | Prior abuse testimony was admissible for non-propensity purposes (motive, intent, common scheme, history, escalation); court gave limiting instruction. | Prior incident was isolated, uncorroborated, highly prejudicial and should have been excluded. | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion admitting 404(b) evidence; even if error, admission would have been harmless. |
| Motion to withdraw guilty plea to §6105 (pre-sentence) and §111/double jeopardy claim | §6105 prosecution is distinct from federal §922(g)(1); each statute requires proof of at least one fact the other does not and protects different societal harms; §111 inapplicable. | Plea was made under coercion; sought withdrawal to challenge search/seizure; alternatively §111 and double jeopardy bar state prosecution after federal conviction for same conduct. | Affirmed: court properly denied pre-sentence motion to withdraw; §111/double jeopardy not a bar because offenses require proof of different facts and target different harms. |
| Competency / taint of child witness (Xander) | Court conducted on-the-record competency inquiry (ability to understand truth duty, perceive/remember events) and found child competent; no evidence presented that interview techniques tainted memory to require a taint hearing. | Child’s testimony was allegedly tainted by media, mother, police and DA contacts and he did not observe events directly. | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; no sufficient evidence of taint to trigger a taint hearing; child was competent. |
| Competency of victim (Gloria) to testify | Competency presumed; challenges to mental illness, medication or drug use go to credibility, not competency, and were for the jury to weigh. | Gloria’s mental health, medications and heroin use impaired perception and memory, so she should have been barred from testifying or had a competency hearing. | Affirmed: court properly allowed Gloria to testify; issues raised go to credibility, not capacity, and defense could attack credibility at trial. |
| Waiver of counsel / Grazier hearing | Court scheduled and heard the waiver request, afforded opportunity but defendant’s request was not clear, unequivocal or timely and appeared a dilatory tactic; no right to hybrid representation. | Asserts trial court failed to hold a proper Grazier hearing and denied a timely request to proceed pro se. | Affirmed: no abuse—request was not timely/unequivocal, defendant deferred and later remained represented; court properly declined to permit self-representation. |
| Sentencing credit for time served / legality of sentence | Defendant arrested May 30, 2012 and remained in state custody; under primary-jurisdiction doctrine federal sentence did not begin while state custody continued, so Williams is entitled to additional credit for time between Aug. 28, 2014 (federal sentence date) and Jan. 26, 2016 (state sentencing). | Contended some credit was incorrectly allocated and raised a separate claim that minimum exceeded one-half the maximum (42 Pa.C.S. § 9756(b)(1)). | Mixed: convictions and most rulings affirmed; Superior Court vacated judgment of sentence and remanded for an amended sentencing order to award additional credit for the period Aug. 28, 2014–Jan. 26, 2016. No illegality regarding minimum/maximum ratio (court found it within limits). |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Pardo, 35 A.3d 1222 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard for pre-sentence withdrawal of guilty plea: fair-and-just reasons and lack of substantial prejudice)
- Newsuan v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 853 A.2d 409 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (primary jurisdiction doctrine — sovereign that first arrests defendant retains priority until relinquishment)
- United States v. Pungitore, 910 F.2d 1084 (3d Cir. 1990) (federal sentence commencement principles under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(a))
- Commonwealth v. Drumheller, 808 A.2d 893 (Pa. 2002) (admissibility of prior domestic incidents under Rule 404(b) to show motive, intent and history)
- Commonwealth v. Rosche, 156 A.2d 307 (Pa. 1959) (competency test for child witnesses: communicate, perceive/remember, duty to tell truth)
- Commonwealth v. Delbridge, 855 A.2d 27 (Pa. 2003) (taint doctrine for child witnesses: when suggestive interviewing may necessitate a taint hearing)
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (deferential standard for review of discretionary sentencing decisions)