Com. v. Williams, O.
3135 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 25, 2016Background
- On Nov. 10, 2005 police in a marked car received a tip of criminal activity; they saw Omar Williams matching the tip and he fled when he noticed them.
- Officer Ewing chased Williams; Williams fell onto a pile of tree branches behind a residence.
- Officer Ewing stood Williams up and observed a loaded revolver on the branches directly under Williams’ stomach; Williams had no carry license.
- Williams was convicted after a waiver trial of violations of the Uniform Firearms Act and sentenced to 4–8 years.
- Williams filed a PCRA petition alleging trial counsel was ineffective for filing but not litigating a suppression motion and sought an evidentiary hearing; the PCRA court dismissed the petition and denied a hearing.
- The Superior Court affirmed, adopting the PCRA court’s detailed opinion that the suppression claim lacked arguable merit and no material factual disputes warranted a hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA raised disputed facts requiring an evidentiary hearing | Commonwealth: no genuine material factual dispute; record resolves issues | Williams: counsel ineffective for not litigating suppression; officer not credible; hearing needed to resolve credibility and counsel strategy | Denied — court found no genuine issues of material fact and no merit to the suppression/ineffectiveness claim; hearing unnecessary |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for filing but declining to litigate a suppression motion | Commonwealth: counsel presumed effective; defendant failed Pierce test showing arguable merit, reasonable basis, and prejudice | Williams: counsel’s failure to litigate deprived him of due process and an opportunity to suppress the gun | Denied — court held Williams failed to show the suppression motion had arguable merit (no standing/privacy interest) or resulting prejudice |
| Whether the stop, pursuit, and seizure violated Fourth Amendment principles | Commonwealth: officers lawfully approached, pursuit justified by flight in a high-crime area, gun seized in plain view / incident to arrest | Williams: implied challenge to the lawfulness of the stop, chase, and seizure (necessitating suppression) | Denied — court concluded encounter was lawful, flight in high-crime area gave reasonable suspicion, and the gun was properly seized under plain view / search-incident-to-arrest doctrines |
| Whether the PCRA petition met the threshold to call witnesses and require testimony | Commonwealth: petitioner offered only boilerplate assertions and did not comply with statutory witness certification requirements | Williams: requested hearing and intended to call Officer Ewing and others to prove credibility and facts | Denied — court found trial testimony already on record, petitioner failed to proffer admissible, specific testimony as required, and credibility had been assessed at trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. Commonwealth, 139 A.3d 178 (Pa. 2016) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
- Maldonado v. Commonwealth, 14 A.3d 907 (Pa. Super. 2011) (defendant must establish standing and expectation of privacy to suppress)
- Burton v. Commonwealth, 973 A.2d 428 (Pa. Super. 2009) (same — separate showing of legitimate expectation of privacy)
- Hill v. Commonwealth, 874 A.2d 1214 (Pa. Super. 2005) (distinguishing mere encounter from investigatory stop)
- Smith v. Commonwealth, 836 A.2d 5 (Pa. 2003) (mere encounter requires no level of suspicion)
- In re D.M., 781 A.2d 1161 (Pa. 2001) (presence in high-crime area plus unprovoked flight can supply reasonable suspicion)
- Ellis v. Commonwealth, 662 A.2d 1043 (Pa. 1995) (plain view seizure requirements)
- Stanley v. Commonwealth, 446 A.2d 583 (Pa. 1982) (search incident to lawful arrest and areas within suspect’s immediate control)
- Pierce v. Commonwealth, 527 A.2d 973 (Pa. 1987) (three-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Wardlow v. Illinois, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) (high-crime-area flight supports reasonable suspicion)