Com. v. Williams, K.
2194 EDA 2012
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 22, 2016Background
- Kendall Williams pled open guilty on July 9, 2007 to attempted murder and possession of an instrument of crime; other counts nolle prossed. Sentence was 17½ to 35 years plus 5 years probation on October 12, 2007.
- Williams sought reinstatement of appellate rights and appealed; sentence was affirmed by the Superior Court in 2009.
- Williams filed a PCRA petition alleging multiple instances of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel and sentencing errors; PCRA counsel (Tone) filed a Finley/Turner no‑merit letter and sought to withdraw.
- The PCRA court ordered an amended petition limited to the failure to call character witnesses at sentencing, issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice, held a limited evidentiary hearing, and denied relief on July 10, 2012.
- Williams appealed pro se raising five issues: aggravated‑range sentencing and guideline misapplication, motion to change PCRA counsel, multiple trial‑counsel ineffectiveness claims (including failure to call witnesses, PSI objections, post‑sentence motions), and appellate counsel ineffectiveness for not pursuing further review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Williams) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Aggravated‑range sentencing & reliance on nolle prossed charges | Sentence improperly aggravated and excessive; court relied on dismissed charges and penalized allocution/remorse | Discretionary sentencing challenge not cognizable under PCRA; no illegality alleged | Denied — not cognizable under PCRA |
| 2. Misapplication of sentencing guidelines (OGS/PRS) | Court miscomputed guideline ranges and applied crime‑alone sentencing | Claim is a discretionary sentencing challenge; also waived for failure to raise in 1925(b) | Denied — not cognizable and waived |
| 3. Motion to replace appointed PCRA counsel (conflict/retaliation) | PCRA counsel filed Turner/Finley letter in retaliation after Williams complained to Disciplinary Board | Record shows Turner/Finley letter filed before Williams sought new counsel; Williams consented to counsel at hearing | Denied — no record support for relief |
| 4. Trial counsel ineffective (multiple grounds) | Counsel distracted by family illness; failed to object to PSI, follow plea terms, challenge mandatory minimum, call character/expert witnesses, file post‑sentence motions | Williams failed to plead or prove all Pierce factors (arguable merit; no reasonable basis; prejudice) for these claims | Denied — Pierce test not satisfied |
| 5. Appellate counsel ineffective for not raising trial IAC on direct appeal | Appellate counsel should have raised ineffectiveness claims and sought further review | General rule defers IAC claims to PCRA review; exceptions (meritorious+apparent or multiple claims with waiver) not shown | Denied — appellate counsel not ineffective under governing exceptions |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (procedures for court review of counsel’s no‑merit letter)
- Commonwealth v. Pierce, 527 A.2d 973 (Pa. 1987) (three‑factor ineffective assistance standard)
- Commonwealth v. Holmes, 79 A.3d 562 (Pa. 2013) (general rule deferring ineffective‑assistance claims to PCRA review and limited exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Fowler, 930 A.2d 586 (Pa. Super. 2007) (discretionary sentencing challenges not cognizable in PCRA)