Com. v. Williams, V.
Com. v. Williams v. No. 541 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 6, 2017Background
- Victor Williams was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault and possessing a firearm without a license and sentenced to an aggregate 5½ to 12 years plus six years’ probation in March 2012.
- He appealed; the Superior Court affirmed in July 2013 and Williams did not seek allowance of appeal to the Supreme Court, making his judgment of sentence final August 14, 2013.
- Williams filed a timely pro se PCRA petition (July 16, 2014) arguing (1) appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge denial of a Pa.R.Crim.P. 600 motion, and (2) his mandatory-minimum sentence under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712 was illegal under Alleyne v. United States.
- PCRA counsel Scott Galloway filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter and petition to withdraw but did not adequately address whether direct‑appeal counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the Rule 600 issue; the PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice, granted withdrawal, and dismissed the petition.
- The Commonwealth and the PCRA court acknowledged the Alleyne claim required vacatur; the Superior Court concluded the no‑merit letter was deficient as to the appellate‑counsel ineffectiveness claim, reversed the PCRA denial, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing and appointment of new counsel to address the Rule 600 ineffectiveness claim.
Issues
| Issue | Williams' Argument | Commonwealth/PCRA Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandatory minimum under § 9712 is unconstitutional under Alleyne | Alleyne renders the mandatory minimum illegal because facts increasing mandatory minima must be found by a jury | Initially the sentencing scheme stood, but parties and court acknowledged Alleyne applies because the case was pending on direct review when Alleyne was decided | Superior Court: Alleyne applies here; sentence vacated and resentencing ordered without § 9712 mandatory minimum |
| Whether direct‑appeal counsel was ineffective for not challenging denial of Rule 600 motion | Williams: appellate counsel should have raised Rule 600 denial on direct appeal | PCRA court implicitly treated issue as meritless or inadequately developed | Superior Court: remand to review effectiveness of appellate counsel; PCRA counsel failed to properly address this claim |
| Whether PCRA counsel acted ineffectively by filing a deficient Turner/Finley no‑merit letter and seeking withdrawal | Williams: Galloway failed to list and analyze the appellate‑counsel ineffectiveness claim in the no‑merit letter | PCRA court granted withdrawal despite letter omissions | Superior Court: Galloway’s no‑merit letter was inadequate on the Rule 600‑ineffectiveness issue; withdrawal was improperly granted; counsel must be appointed on remand |
| Whether PCRA court properly dismissed the PCRA petition | Williams: dismissal was improper due to Alleyne and counsel‑ineffectiveness claims | PCRA court dismissed after granting counsel’s withdrawal | Superior Court: dismissal reversed; judgment of sentence vacated; case remanded for further proceedings and resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimums must be found by a jury)
- Commonwealth v. Ruiz, 131 A.3d 54 (Pa. Super. 2015) (Alleyne may apply where judgment was not final when Alleyne decided)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne does not apply retroactively to collateral attacks on sentences that were final before Alleyne)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedures governing counsel’s withdrawal in PCRA cases)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (no‑merit letter framework)
- Commonwealth v. Friend, 896 A.2d 607 (Pa. Super. 2006) (counsel must list claims reviewed and explain why claims lack merit in no‑merit letter)
- Commonwealth v. Pitts, 981 A.2d 875 (Pa. 2009) (procedural requirements when counsel files a no‑merit letter)