Com. v. Williams Moore, D.
311 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 12, 2017Background
- On March 25, 2016, an altercation outside a Masontown bar escalated when Donavin Williams (Appellant) fired a .32 caliber handgun, striking Willie Batie multiple times; a bystander and surveillance video identified Williams as the shooter.
- Police recovered nine .32 auto casings and two deformed bullets at the scene and later matched recovered bullets to the .32 firearm found at Williams’s residence.
- After arrest, Williams waived Miranda warnings and admitted the handgun and marijuana/paraphernalia were his; a gunshot residue test was consistent with recent firearm discharge.
- A consent search of the residence produced a loaded .32 handgun, multiple baggies of marijuana, scales, paraphernalia, ammunition, a shoulder holster, and indicia of Williams’s residence; an expert opined the drugs were possessed with intent to deliver.
- At a non-jury (bench) trial, Williams was convicted of attempted homicide, aggravated assault, recklessly endangering another person, firearms not to be carried without a license, possession with intent to deliver, and possession of a controlled substance; sentenced to an aggregate 10–20 years’ imprisonment.
- On appeal Williams raised (1) claims asserting self-defense and insufficiency regarding the shooting, (2) insufficiency as to intent to deliver, and (3) a challenge to admission of expert testimony; the trial court and Commonwealth moved to affirm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Williams) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency re: self-defense and shooting convictions | Evidence (identification, video, GSR, recovered bullets) proves Williams shot Batie and disproves lawful self-defense | Williams argued he shot believing Batie would harm him (self-defense) | Waived/undeveloped: Williams’ sufficiency/self-defense claim was not meaningfully developed; appellate court found it waived and denied relief |
| Sufficiency re: intent to deliver controlled substances | Expert testimony, scales, baggies, packaging, and indicia of residence support intent to deliver | Williams argued Commonwealth failed to prove intent to deliver | Waived/undeveloped: Claim was inadequately developed; appellate court found it waived and denied relief |
| Weight of the evidence (shooting and drug counts) | Trial court’s findings supported verdicts | Williams raised weight claims on appeal | Waived: Williams failed to preserve weight claims in post-sentence motion or before sentencing; court declined to review |
| Admission of police expert testimony | Commonwealth offered and trial court admitted expert testimony on drug distribution and firearms without objection at trial | Williams listed the issue but expressly withdrew the argument on appeal | Not reviewed: Williams withdrew the argument; court declined further review |
Key Cases Cited
- Widmer v. Commonwealth, 560 Pa. 308, 744 A.2d 745 (2000) (distinguishes weight-of-the-evidence from sufficiency and explains preservation)
- Richard v. Commonwealth, 150 A.3d 504 (Pa. Super. 2016) (post-sentence procedures for preserving weight claims)
- Griffin v. Commonwealth, 65 A.3d 932 (Pa. Super. 2013) (preservation requirements under Pa.R.Crim.P. 607)
- Burkett v. Commonwealth, 830 A.2d 1034 (Pa. Super. 2003) (failure to present weight claim in prescribed manner constitutes waiver)
- McDermitt v. Commonwealth, 66 A.3d 810 (Pa. Super. 2013) (undeveloped appellate arguments are waived)