Com. v. Williams, A. ( 2015 )

J-S27029-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
ALAN WILLIAMS
Appellant No. 1841 EDA 2014
Appeal from the PCRA Order dated May 28, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
Criminal Division at No: CP-09-CR-0000499-2010
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., STABILE, and FITZGERALD,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED JULY 20, 2015
Appellant Alan Williams appeals from the order of the Court of
Common Pleas of Bucks County, which denied his request for collateral relief
under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-46. For
the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
The PCRA court summarized the facts and procedural history of this
case as follows.
On July 12, 2010, [Appellant] was found guilty of [r]ape by
[f]orcible [c]ompulsion, [r]ape by [t]hreat of [f]orcible
[c]ompulsion, [c]riminal [a]ttempt – IDSI by [f]orcible
[c]ompulsion, [s]exual [a]ssault, [i]ndecent [a]ssault by [t]hreat
of [f]orcible [c]ompulsion, [t]erroristic [t]hreats with [i]ntent to
[t]errorize [a]nother, and [f]alse [i]mprisonment. [Appellant]
was then found to be a [s]exually [v]iolent [p]redator (“SVP”),
and was sentenced on March 2, 2011 to serve sixteen (16) to
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S27029-15
forty (40) years in a state correctional institution followed by a
period of probation of not less than 5 years.
Appellant, through counsel, subsequently filed a direct
appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. The Superior
Court affirmed the trial court’s decision on December 9, 2011.
[Appellant] then filed a timely pro se [PRCA p]etition . . . on
January 7, 2013, and counsel filed an [a]mended PCRA petition
on September 16, 2013. Following an evidentiary hearing held
September 23, 2013, November 14, 2013, and March 27, 2014,
. . . [Appellant’s] amended petition for relief under the PCRA was
denied on May 28, 2014 and [Appellant] subsequently filed a
timely notice of appeal with the Superior Court[.]
PCRA Court Opinion, 9/4/14, at 1-2. Appellant filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
statement of errors complained of on appeal, arguing only that the “[t]rial
counsel was ineffective when he failed to adequately consult with and review
specific discovery materials (CDs containing multiple recorded phone calls)
with [Appellant] prior to trial.” Rule 1925(b) Statement, 7/21/14. In
response, the PCRA court issued a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, wherein it
concluded Appellant’s ineffectiveness claim was without merit. Specifically,
the PCRA determined Appellant failed to meet the Pierce1 test to the extent
Appellant failed to establish his trial counsel’s actions did not have a
reasonable strategic basis or that Appellant suffered actual prejudice
because of the trial counsel’s actions.
On appeal,2 Appellant repeats the same argument that he raised in his
Rule 1925(b) statement. After careful review of the parties’ briefs, the
____________________________________________
1
Commonwealth v. Pierce, 527 A.2d 973, 975 (Pa. 1987).
2
“In reviewing the denial of PCRA relief, we examine whether the PCRA
court’s determination ‘is supported by the record and free of legal error.’”
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-2-
J-S27029-15
record on appeal, and the relevant case law, we conclude that the PCRA
court’s Rule 1925(a) opinion authored by President Judge Jeffrey L. Finley,
thoroughly and adequately disposes of Appellant’s issue on appeal. 3 See
PCRA Court Opinion, 9/4/14, at 2-10. We, therefore, affirm the PCRA court’s
order denying Appellant’s PCRA petition. We direct that a copy of the PCRA
court’s September 4, 2014 opinion be attached to any future filings in this
case.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/20/2015
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
Commonwealth v. Fears, 86 A.3d 795, 803 (Pa. 2014) (quoting
Commonwealth v. Rainey, 928 A.2d 215, 223 (Pa. 2007)).
3
We observe Appellant’s brief is bereft of any discussion or argument with
respect to the arguable merit prong of the Pierce test. As we recently
emphasized, “[a] petitioner must prove all three factors of the Pierce test,
or the [ineffectiveness] claim fails. In addition, on appeal, a petitioner must
adequately discuss all three factors of the Pierce test, or the appellate
court will reject the claim.” Commonwealth v. Reyes-Rodriguez, 111
A.3d 775, 780 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en banc) (emphasis added) (citing Fears,
86 A.3d at 804)). Despite Appellant’s failure to discuss the arguable merit
prong on appeal, we need not address whether his ineffectiveness claim is
waived because, as stated, the PCRA court adequately disposed of the claim
in its Rule 1925(a) opinion.
-3-
Circulated 06/19/2015 02:58 PM
Circulated 06/19/2015 02:58 PM
Circulated 06/19/2015 02:58 PM
Circulated 06/19/2015 02:58 PM
Circulated 06/19/2015 02:58 PM
Circulated 06/19/2015 02:58 PM
Circulated 06/19/2015 02:58 PM
Circulated 06/19/2015 02:58 PM
Circulated 06/19/2015 02:58 PM
Circulated 06/19/2015 02:58 PM