Com. v. Williams, M.
Com. v. Williams, M. No. 62 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 1, 2017Background
- Mark L. Williams was convicted of first-degree murder and illegal firearm possession for the 2009 killing of Isaiah McLendon; sentenced to life without parole.
- Co-defendant Gregory Graham testified that Williams shot McLendon; Graham pleaded guilty to related charges and testified for the Commonwealth.
- Two defense witnesses (James Shepard and Stefan Fenwick) invoked the Fifth Amendment at trial and were excused; defense counsel did not call them.
- Williams appealed and filed a PCRA petition alleging trial counsel ineffectiveness (including failure to challenge the witnesses' Fifth Amendment claims and a jury instruction about Graham) and later alleged PCRA counsel was ineffective for not raising additional claims.
- The Superior Court remanded for an evidentiary hearing limited to (1) counsel’s failure to challenge acceptance of Shepard’s and Fenwick’s Fifth Amendment assertions and (2) counsel’s failure to object to the trial court’s instruction that Graham “knew the real reason” for the homicide.
- After a limited PCRA hearing, the PCRA court denied relief; the Superior Court affirmed, finding no arguable merit or no prejudice for Williams’ claims and that Williams waived undeveloped claims against PCRA counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial counsel ineffective for not objecting to court accepting Fenwick’s Fifth Amendment claim | Williams: Fenwick’s invocation was improper and counsel should have objected | Commonwealth/PCRA court: Fenwick had reasonable fear of self-incrimination given pending violent charges and gang/drug-related facts | Denied — no arguable merit; in-camera inquiry supported Fenwick’s privilege claim |
| Trial counsel ineffective for not objecting to court accepting Shepard’s Fifth Amendment claim | Williams: Shepard’s testimony would impeach jailhouse informant Mason and could affect outcome | Commonwealth/PCRA court: Shepard’s absence did not create reasonable probability of different outcome given overwhelming inculpatory evidence | Denied — even if privilege was erroneously accepted, no prejudice shown |
| Trial counsel ineffective for failing to object to jury instruction about Graham "knew the real reason" for murder | Williams: instruction encouraged jury to accept Graham’s trial testimony implicating Williams | Defense counsel: strategic decision not to object to avoid highlighting remark or inviting curative instruction | Denied — counsel’s tactical choice was reasonable; no ineffectiveness |
| PCRA counsel ineffective for not raising five additional claims in amended petition | Williams: PCRA counsel omitted meritorious claims (sentencing, suppression, continuance, cell-phone evidence, recantation) causing procedural default | PCRA court/Commonwealth: claims were undeveloped/boilerplate and Williams failed to develop prejudice or the required ineffectiveness prongs | Denied/waved — claims inadequately developed and thus waived |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (standard for counsel withdrawal and PCRA counsel procedures)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (procedures for no-merit letters under PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 26 A.3d 485 (Pa. Super. 2011) (Fifth Amendment privilege scope for witnesses)
- Commonwealth v. Treat, 848 A.2d 147 (Pa. Super. 2004) (trial court’s role in evaluating invocation of privilege and in-camera inquiry)
- Commonwealth v. Kimball, 724 A.2d 326 (Pa. 1999) (three-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Koehler, 36 A.3d 121 (Pa. 2012) (reasonableness of counsel’s trial strategy controls ineffectiveness review)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 870 A.2d 822 (Pa. 2005) (risks of objections highlighting contested evidence and limits of curative instructions)
- Commonwealth v. Paddy, 15 A.3d 431 (Pa. 2011) (rejecting boilerplate ineffective-assistance claims without developed argument)
- Commonwealth v. Steele, 961 A.2d 786 (Pa. 2008) (undeveloped claims of counsel ineffectiveness may be denied)
- Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 31 (Pa. 1998) (procedures for a defendant waiving counsel and proceeding pro se)