Com. v. Williams, R.
Com. v. Williams, R. No. 1950 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 18, 2017Background
- Roger H. Williams was convicted in 2000 after a non-jury trial of robbery, burglary, and related offenses and sentenced to 36–72 years.
- Williams’ direct appeals concluded in 2002; his judgment of sentence became final by January 8, 2003.
- Williams filed multiple PCRA petitions; the instant (fourth) petition was filed March 10, 2016 and was facially untimely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b).
- He invoked the newly-discovered-facts timeliness exception (§ 9545(b)(1)(ii)), asserting trial counsel rejected a plea offer without consulting him; he produced a plea-offer memorandum obtained via a Right-to-Know request in January 2016.
- The PCRA court denied relief for lack of due diligence in discovering the document (long delay between knowledge and Right-to-Know requests) and because the document did not prove counsel failed to communicate the offer.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding Williams did not show the required due diligence and the document did not establish noncommunication by counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Williams satisfied the § 9545(b)(1)(ii) newly-discovered-fact exception | Williams: receipt (Jan 2016) of DA’s plea-offer memorandum is a newly-discovered fact and petition was filed within 60 days | Commonwealth: Williams knew of the pretrial offer much earlier and failed to exercise due diligence in obtaining the document | Held: Timeliness exception not met; Williams lacked due diligence (delays from 2004 to 2012 and 2012 to 2015) |
| Whether the plea-offer document proved counsel failed to inform Williams of the offer | Williams: document shows offer was proffered to counsel and would have been accepted | Commonwealth: the document only shows an offer existed and was rejected; it does not prove counsel did not communicate the offer | Held: Document does not prove counsel failed to communicate the offer |
| Whether counsel’s alleged failure to inform constituted ineffective assistance requiring relief | Williams: noncommunication of a favorable plea offer deprived him of effective assistance and due process | Commonwealth: underlying timeliness and proof deficiencies preclude relief; no established factual predicate that counsel withheld the offer | Held: Claim not reached substantively because timeliness/diligence failure and lack of proof; no relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Spotz v. Commonwealth, 84 A.3d 294 (Pa. 2014) (standard/scope of review for PCRA denials)
- Bennett v. Commonwealth, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (newly-discovered-fact timeliness exception requires unknown facts and due diligence)
- Carr v. Commonwealth, 768 A.2d 1164 (Pa. Super. 2001) (due diligence requires reasonable steps to protect interests)
- Breakiron v. Commonwealth, 781 A.2d 94 (Pa. 2001) (petition must explain why facts could not have been learned earlier)
- Monaco v. Commonwealth, 996 A.2d 1076 (Pa. Super. 2010) (due diligence explained)
- Marshall v. Commonwealth, 947 A.2d 714 (Pa. 2008) (focus is on newly discovered facts, not newly discovered source)
- Brown v. Commonwealth, 111 A.3d 171 (Pa. Super. 2015) (due diligence standard and strict enforcement)
- Burton v. Commonwealth, 121 A.3d 1063 (Pa. Super. 2015) (due diligence requires reasonable efforts under the circumstances)
- Bretz v. Commonwealth, 830 A.2d 1273 (Pa. Super. 2003) (PCRA timeliness rule)
- Pollard v. Commonwealth, 911 A.2d 1005 (Pa. Super. 2006) (finality of judgment guidance)