From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Williams

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Sep 27, 2016
No. 2201 EDA 2015 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 27, 2016)

Opinion

J-S63036-16 No. 2201 EDA 2015

09-27-2016

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. SYNGUILA WILLIAMS Appellant


NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the PCRA Order July 17, 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0000488-2010 BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., SHOGAN, J., and FITZGERALD, J. JUDGMENT ORDER BY FITZGERALD, J.:

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

Appellant, Synguila Williams, appeals from the order dismissing her Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA") petition as untimely filed. She claims plea counsel was ineffective by advising her that her sentence would be concurrent with, and not consecutive to, her federal sentence. We affirm.

We adopt the facts and procedural history as set forth in the PCRA court's opinion. See PCRA Ct. Op., 2/25/16, at 1-2. The court sentenced Appellant on October 3, 2011, and she did not file a direct appeal. Her sentence became final on November 2, 2011. The court docketed Appellant's first pro se PCRA petition on November 21, 2012. Counsel was appointed and he filed an amended petition claiming Appellant's pro se petition was timely filed and that her guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligently made. Following a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice, the court dismissed Appellant's petition on July 17, 2015. Appellant timely appealed and timely filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement.

Before addressing the merits of Appellant's claims, we examine whether we have jurisdiction. See Commonwealth v. Fahy , 737 A.2d 214, 223 (Pa. 1999). "Our standard of review of a PCRA court's dismissal of a PCRA petition is limited to examining whether the PCRA court's determination is supported by the evidence of record and free of legal error." Commonwealth v. Wilson , 824 A.2d 331, 333 (Pa. Super. 2003) (en banc) (citation omitted). A PCRA petition "must normally be filed within one year of the date the judgment becomes final . . . unless one of the exceptions in § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii) applies and the petition is filed within 60 days of the date the claim could have been presented." Commonwealth v. Copenhefer , 941 A.2d 646, 648 (Pa. 2007) (citations and footnote omitted).

After careful review of the record, Appellant's brief, and the decision by the PCRA court, we affirm on the basis of the PCRA court's reasoning. See PCRA Ct. Op. at 2-4 (holding (1) Appellant failed to plead and prove any one of the three timeliness exceptions to the one-year time bar; and (2) on the merits, counsel explained to Appellant at the sentencing hearing that her sentence would be consecutive to her federal sentence). Having discerned no error, we affirm the order below.

The Commonwealth did not file a brief.

Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 9/27/2016

Image materials not available for display.


Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Williams

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Sep 27, 2016
No. 2201 EDA 2015 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 27, 2016)
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Williams

Case Details

Full title:COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. SYNGUILA WILLIAMS Appellant

Court:SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Sep 27, 2016

Citations

No. 2201 EDA 2015 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 27, 2016)