Com. v. Williams, L.
Com. v. Williams, L. No. 390 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 14, 2017Background
- On June 13, 2004, eyewitness Reginald Stephon Foster saw Leander Williams grab and shoot the victim; Foster later testified at a preliminary hearing and at trial. Another witness, Valene Mouzone (pregnant with the victim's child), also identified Williams and spoke to police about his statements after the shooting.
- Williams was convicted on March 20, 2009 of first-degree murder, robbery, and related offenses; sentenced to life without parole plus a consecutive 10–20 years; he did not file a direct appeal but later had direct-appeal rights reinstated nunc pro tunc and appealed unsuccessfully.
- Williams filed a timely PCRA petition (pro se then amended by counsel) raising ineffective-assistance claims: (1) counsel failed to object to admission of Foster’s prior testimony (Confrontation Clause/full cross-examination); (2) counsel failed to impeach Foster with his criminal record; (3) counsel failed to introduce Shawn Astillero’s criminal record to support an alternate-perpetrator defense; and (4) counsel failed to object to the trial court’s admonition to Mouzone about perjury.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing; Williams appealed and the Superior Court reviewed whether dismissal without a hearing was an abuse of discretion and whether each ineffectiveness claim had arguable merit.
- The Superior Court affirmed: it held prior rulings and the record (stipulation about Foster’s open criminal cases, lack of convictions or signature similarity for Astillero, and the context of the trial court’s admonition to Mouzone) showed no arguable merit or prejudice, so counsel was not ineffective and no hearing was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Failure to object to admission of Foster's preliminary-hearing testimony (Confrontation) | Williams: Foster was not given a full and fair opportunity to be cross-examined at the preliminary hearing; admitting his prior testimony violated the Confrontation Clause. | Commonwealth/PCRA court: Record shows counsel had Foster's prior statement and conducted extensive cross-examination at the preliminary hearing; the claim was waived on appeal and meritless if preserved. | Court: No arguable merit; prior decision is law of the case; counsel not ineffective. |
| 2) Failure to impeach Foster with his criminal record at the preliminary hearing | Williams: Counsel had no tactical reason to refrain from impeaching Foster; jury never saw Foster confronted with his record. | Commonwealth/PCRA court: Impeachment at preliminary hearing is limited by practice; the parties stipulated at trial to Foster's open cases and related facts, curing any defect; counsel had reasonable basis. | Court: No arguable merit; stipulation cured any impeachment defect; counsel not ineffective. |
| 3) Failure to introduce Astillero's criminal record to show he was the real shooter | Williams: Astillero’s prior firearm/violent charges showed access to and propensity for guns and supported alternate-perpetrator defense (Rule 404(b)(2)). | Commonwealth/PCRA court: Extracts showed charges but no convictions and no distinctive similarity to the murder; not a signature crime—probative value insufficient. | Court: Evidence properly excluded; claim lacked arguable merit; counsel not ineffective. |
| 4) Failure to object to trial court’s admonition to Mouzone about perjury/coercion | Williams: Court’s warning coerced Mouzone to testify consistent with prior statement, violating due process (Webb). | Commonwealth/PCRA court: Mouzone feigned amnesia and expressly remembered events; court warned only of legal consequences of false testimony, not to coerce a particular version; context differs from Webb. | Court: Warning was proper, not coercive; claim lacked merit; counsel not ineffective. |
Key Cases Cited
- Spotz v. Commonwealth, 18 A.3d 244 (Pa. 2011) (ineffective-assistance standard—arguable merit, reasonable basis, prejudice)
- Hanible v. Commonwealth, 30 A.3d 426 (Pa. 2011) (stipulation can cure impeachment defects from preliminary hearing testimony)
- Webb v. Texas, 405 U.S. 95 (U.S. 1972) (trial-court threats that drive a defense witness off the stand violate due process)
- Reed v. Commonwealth, 971 A.2d 1216 (Pa. 2009) (law-of-the-case where appellate court deems waived claim meritless if preserved)
- Weiss v. Commonwealth, 81 A.3d 767 (Pa. 2013) (admissibility of other-crimes evidence requires consideration of time lapse and distinctive similarity/signature)
- Palagonia v. Commonwealth, 868 A.2d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2005) (other-person evidence admissible where it shows another committed the crime, subject to similarity/time factors)
- Melson v. Commonwealth, 637 A.2d 633 (Pa. Super. 1994) (stipulation can cure failure to cross-examine on impeaching matters)