Com. v. Williams, G.

J-S08041-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
GARY D. WILLIAMS
Appellant No. 2428 EDA 2014
Appeal from the PCRA Order August 1, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-46-CR-0001658-2012
CP-46-CR-0003236-2012
BEFORE: DONOHUE, J., WECHT, J., and JENKINS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY JENKINS, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 18, 2015
Appellant Gary D. Williams appeals pro se from the order of the
Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas denying his petition filed
pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S. § 9542, et
seq. We affirm.
Appellant was charged at docket number at CP-46-CR-0001658-2012
with theft by deception-false impression,1 theft by unlawful taking-movable
property,2 receiving stolen property,3 conspiracy,4 and possessing
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S. § 3922(a)(1).
2
18 Pa.C.S. § 3921(a).
3
18 Pa.C.S. § 3925(a).
4
18 Pa.C.S. § 903(c).
J-S08041-15
instruments of crime.5 Appellant was charged at docket number CP-46-CR-
0003236-2012 with theft by deception–false impression and receiving stolen
property.
On October 21, 2013, Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea. At
docket number CP-46-CR-0001658-2012, he pled guilty to theft by
deception, conspiracy, and possessing instruments of crime. At docket
number CP-46-CR-0003236-2012, he pled guilty to theft by deception. The
trial court sentenced Appellant that same day pursuant to the negotiated
guilty plea to concurrent terms of one-and-one-half to three years’
incarceration and four years’ probation for each theft by deception conviction
and for the conspiracy conviction. Additionally, the trial court sentenced
Appellant to a consecutive five-year term of probation for the possessing
instruments of crime conviction. Appellant did not file post-sentence
motions or a direct appeal.
On January 6, 2014, Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition.6 On
January 14, 2014, the PCRA court appointed counsel, who filed a no-merit
letter pursuant to Commonwealth v. Finley7 and Commonwealth v.
____________________________________________
5
18 Pa.C.S. § 907(a).
6
Appellant’s PCRA petition alleged errors with the arrest warrant and
ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to file a motion regarding errors
with the arrest warrant. Motion for Post Collateral Conviction Relief,
1/6/2014, at 4.
7
550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super.1998).
-2-
J-S08041-15
Turner,8 and a petition to withdraw as counsel. On June 19, 2014, the trial
court issued notice of its intent to dismiss the petition without a hearing
pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 907 and granted
counsel’s petition to withdraw. On August 1, 2014, the PCRA court
dismissed the petition. On August 21, 2014, Appellant filed a timely notice
of appeal. The trial court did not order a statement of errors complained of
on appeal pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b) and
Appellant did not file one. On August 29, 2014, the trial court issued an
order adopting its June 19, 2014 notice of intent to dismiss as its Rule
1925(a) opinion.
Appellant raises the following issues on appeal:
1. Can an arrest warrant be issued without probable cause
supported by oath or affirmation?
2. Should have the private citizen criminal complaint gone
before the district attorney for the commonwealth for
approval or anyone empowered to take complaints under
oath before an arrest warrant was issued for the
defendant?
3. Can a police officer give verification under oath, based
solely upon the complaint information? And not have any
firsthand knowledge or knowledge gain through an
independent investigation, that a crime has been omitted
by the accused.
4. District Judge: Juanita A. Price abandon her neutral
position by allowing Officer Robert Wilsbach to go under
oath, to obtain an arrest warrant for the defendant without
____________________________________________
8
544 A.2d 927 (Pa.1988).
-3-
J-S08041-15
having any factual knowledge that he had committed a
crime.
5. Can a police Officer from another jurisdiction approve a
criminal complaint for a crime that didn't occur in his
jurisdiction?
Appellant’s Brief at 3 (verbatim).9 Appellant’s first four issues challenge the
arrest warrants and the procedures used for issuance of the warrant.
Appellant’s fifth issue maintains the Montgomery County police officers
lacked jurisdiction to file criminal charges against Appellant.
Our standard of review from the denial of post-conviction relief “is
limited to examining whether the court’s determination is supported by the
evidence of record and whether it is free of legal error.” Commonwealth v.
Ousley, 21 A.3d 1238 (Pa.Super.2011) (citing Commonwealth v.
Morales, 701 A.2d 516, 520 (Pa.1997)).
“A plea of guilty constitutes a waiver of all nonjurisdictional defects
and defenses. When a defendant pleads guilty, he waives the right to
challenge anything but the legality of his sentence and the validity of his
plea.” Commonwealth v. Jones, 929 A.2d 205, 212 (Pa.2007) (quoting
Commonwealth v. Montgomery, 401 A.2d 318, 319 (Pa.1979)). Further,
“[a]llegations of ineffectiveness in connection with the entry of a guilty plea
will serve as a basis for relief only if the ineffectiveness caused the
defendant to enter an involuntary or unknowing plea.” Commonwealth v.
____________________________________________
9
Appellant’s Brief does not contain page numbers. All page numbers are
supplied by this Court.
-4-
J-S08041-15
Hickman, 799 A.2d 136, 141 (Pa.Super.2002) (quoting Commonwealth v.
Allen, 557 Pa. 135, 732 A.2d 582 (Pa.1999)).
For ineffective assistance of counsel claims, the petitioner must
establish: “(1) that the underlying claim has merit; (2) counsel had no
reasonable strategic basis for his or her action or inaction; and (3) but for
the errors or omissions of counsel, there is a reasonable probability that the
outcome of the proceedings would have been different.” Ousley, 21 A.3d at
1244 (quoting Commonwealth v. Rivera, 10 A.3d 1276, 1279
(Pa.Super.2010)). “[C]ounsel is presumed to be effective and the burden of
demonstrating ineffectiveness rests on appellant.” Id. “The failure to prove
any one of the three [ineffectiveness] prongs results in the failure of
petitioner’s claim.” Id. (quoting Rivera, 10 A.3d at 1279).
The PCRA court found Appellant waived all claims challenging the
arrest warrants and his counsel’s failure to challenge the warrants’ validity
when he pled guilty. Order, 6/19/2014, at ¶11. Further, the PCRA court
found the claims related to the arrest warrants lacked merit, because the
warrants were signed by a judge, and found the ineffectiveness claims
lacked merit because counsel cannot be found ineffective for failing to raise
a meritless claim. Id., at ¶ 13.
The trial court acted within its discretion in finding Appellant waived all
claims related to the arrest warrant. See Jones, 929 A.2d at 212;
Hickman, 799 A.2d at 141. Further, the court acted within its discretion in
finding the claims lacked merit. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 513 (requirements for
-5-
J-S08041-15
issuance of arrest warrant); Commonwealth v. Taylor, 850 A.2d 684, 687
(Pa.Super.2004) (“Probable cause is determined by considering the totality
of the circumstances. Under the totality of the circumstances, a police
officer must make a practical common sense decision whether, given all of
the circumstances known to him at that time, including hearsay information,
there is a fair probability that a crime was committed and that the suspect
committed the crime.” (internal citations omitted)); Ousley, 21 A.3d at
1244 (to establish ineffectiveness claim, petitioner must establish underlying
claim had merit).
Appellant’s fifth claim alleges Montgomery County lacked jurisdiction
to file criminal charges against him. This claim is waived because he failed
to raise it in his PCRA petition. Commonwealth v. Fletcher, 986 A.2d 759,
778 (Pa.2009) (finding claims waived when not in PCRA petition).
Because the trial court acted within its discretion in dismissing claims
related to the arrest warrants and because Appellant waived his claim
related to a lack of jurisdiction to file criminal charges, we affirm the
dismissal.
Order affirmed.
-6-
J-S08041-15
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/18/2015
-7-