Com. v. Williams, C. ( 2022 )

J-S14011-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
CHRIS ALLAN WILLIAMS :
:
Appellant : No. 1115 WDA 2021
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 5, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-63-CR-0001367-2019
BEFORE: McLAUGHLIN, J., McCAFFERY, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED: JULY 15, 2022
Chris Allan Williams appeals from the judgment of sentence entered
following his convictions for simple assault, recklessly endangering another
person, misdemeanor disorderly conduct, summary disorderly conduct, and
summary harassment.1 Williams challenges the discretionary aspects of his
sentence. We affirm.
The trial court summarized the facts of this case as follows:
The testimony at trial developed the following facts. At
approximately 9:50 P.M. on March 23, 2019, [Williams], his
wife, and a friend attended a movie at the Regal Crown
Theater in North Franklin Township, Washington County,
Pennsylvania. Anthony Ward, Lamar Wormsley, and four
other boys also attended the same showing that evening.
All of the boys were juveniles at the time of the incident.
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2701(a)(2), 2701(a)(1), 2705, 5503(a)(1), and 2709(a)(1),
respectively.
J-S14011-22
During the film, [Williams] became irritated with the group
of six boys, because he felt that the boys were being
disruptive. During the movie, [Williams] shouted at the
group of boys to “[s]hut the fuck up.” Following a reply from
the group of boys, [Williams] left his seat and confronted
the group. During the confrontation in the theater,
[Williams] punched Lamar Wormsley, injuring his lip.
Following this punch, a larger physical altercation ensued
between [Williams] and the group of juveniles. Multiple
witnesses testified at trial that [Williams] instigated the
confrontation. Following the altercation in the theater, the
boys exited to the hallway, and [Williams] followed. In the
hallway, [Williams] escalated the situation. He produced a
pistol and fired a shot, injuring Anthony Ward’s knee in the
process. Constable Thomas Duncan (working security for
the theater) intervened and disarmed [Williams]. Anthony
Ward required transportation to a hospital in Pittsburgh via
Life Flight helicopter. Ward sustained serious injuries to his
knee and required surgery. Doctors performed surgery to
remove the bullet from Ward. Pennsylvania State Police
accompanied [Williams] to a hospital but did not place him
into custody. [Williams] turned himself and was arraigned,
whereupon he was released on unsecured bail. The
Commonwealth offered the testimony of two expert
witnesses during trial. Jared Hiester, a forensic analyst from
the Pennsylvania State Police, testified as an expert in DNA
analysis. Jared Hiester testified that [Williams] actually used
the gun based on DNA evidence found on the gun's
handgrip. Corporal Creighton Callas of the Pennsylvania
State Police, an expert in firearms and toolmarks analysis,
testified that it was unlikely that [William’s] gun discharged
accidentally.
Trial Court Opinion, Oct. 28, 2021, at 4-5 (citations to record omitted).
A jury found Williams guilty of two counts of simple assault and one
count each of REAP and disorderly conduct.2 The trial court found him guilty
of the summary offenses of harassment and disorderly conduct. The trial court
____________________________________________
2 The jury found Williams not guilty of aggravated assault and terroristic
threats.
-2-
J-S14011-22
imposed the following sentences: four to 12 months for the first simple assault
conviction; six to 18 months for the second simple assault conviction; nine to
18 months for the REAP conviction; and five to 12 months for the disorderly
conduct conviction. It imposed no further penalty for the summary offenses.
The court ordered that the sentences run consecutive to each other, for an
aggregate sentence of two to five years’ imprisonment.
Williams filed a post-sentence motion, claiming the court failed to
recognize mitigating factors and cited improper aggravating factors when
imposing an excessive sentence; the court erred in using the weapon
enhancement; the court did not consider the particular circumstances of the
defendant; and the court erroneously applied aggravating circumstances. The
court denied the motion. Williams filed a timely notice of appeal.
Williams raises the following issues:
1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by imposing a
manifestly excessive sentence?
2. Did the trial court fail to place adequate reasons on the
record for imposing such an excessive sentence?
3. Did the trial court far exceed the maximum range as
provided in the Pennsylvania Sentencing Guidelines?
Williams’ Br. at 4 (suggested answers omitted).
Williams’ issues go to the discretionary aspects of his sentence, for
which there is no automatic right to appellate review. Commonwealth v.
Banks, 198 A.3d 391, 401 (Pa.Super. 2018). A defendant may obtain
appellate review of discretionary aspects of sentence only if: (1) the appeal is
-3-
J-S14011-22
timely; (2) the defendant preserved the issues below; (3) the defendant has
included in the brief to this Court a Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) concise statement of
reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal; and (4) the Rule 2119(f)
statement raises a substantial question that the sentence is not appropriate
under the Sentencing Code or is contrary to fundamental sentencing norms.
Id.; Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f). See also Banks, 198 A.3d at 401. We make the
substantial-question determination based solely on the contents of the Rule
2119(f) statement. Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617, 621-22 (Pa.
2002). Only if the appellant has raised a substantial question may we turn to
the merits of the sentencing claims. See id.In his Rule 2119(f) statement, Williams alleges the trial court improperly
applied the sentencing matrixes. For the first simple assault conviction,
Williams maintains the Sentencing Guidelines’ range was restorative sanctions
to one month incarceration, with the aggravated range adding an additional
three months. He asserts the sentence of four to 12 months “exceeds the
maximum penalty that is permitted and is therefore improper.” Williams’ Br.
at 12. He makes similar claims for the remaining sentences, claiming each
“exceeds the maximum penalty and is therefore improper.” Id. at 13.
Williams’ Rule 2119(f) statement also challenges the imposition of consecutive
sentences. He claims that the sentences for counts five and seven should have
been concurrent “as they were charged for the same incident with Mr.
Wormsley in the theater seats,” and sentences for counts four and six should
-4-
J-S14011-22
have been concurrent “since they arose from the same incident with Mr. Ward
in the hallway.” Id. at 14.
Although his appeal was timely, Williams did not preserve the claims he
asserts in his Rule 2119(f) statement, either at his sentencing hearing or in
his post-sentence motion. These claims are therefore waived. See
Commonwealth v. Lamonda, 52 A.3d 365, 371 (Pa.Super. 2012) (en banc)
(“Issues challenging the discretionary aspects of a sentence must be raised in
a post-sentence motion or by presenting the claim to the trial court during the
sentencing proceeding”) (citation omitted); Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues not
raised in the trial court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on
appeal”).
Furthermore, his challenge to imposition of consecutive sentences does
not raise a substantial question. A sentencing court has discretion to run
sentences consecutively, and “a bald claim of excessiveness due to the
consecutive nature of a sentence will not raise a substantial question.”
Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d. 1263, 1270 (Pa.Super. 2013). To raise
a substantial question regarding consecutive, guidelines sentences, the
appellant must articulate in the Rule 2119(f) statement that the sentence is
clearly unreasonable and excessive on its face in light of the criminal conduct
at issue in the case. Id. at 1269-70. Here, Williams’ bald challenge to the
imposition of consecutive sentences does not raise a substantial question.
Accordingly, because Williams failed to preserve his claims in the trial
court and failed to raise a substantial question, we cannot review his claims.
-5-
J-S14011-22
And even if Williams had cleared these hurdles, we still could not review the
claims in the Rule 2119(f) statement. Williams waived the claims by failing to
put them in the “Statement of Questions Involved” section of his brief.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/15/2022
-6-