Opinion
J-S56023-15 No. 796 MDA 2015
11-02-2015
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. YAQUAN GERALD WILLIAMS Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order April 9, 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0001092-2009
BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., JENKINS, J., and PLATT, J. MEMORANDUM BY JENKINS, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Yaquan Gerald Williams ("Appellant"), appeals from the order dismissing his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. After careful review, we affirm.
On September 21, 2010, a jury found Appellant guilty of murder in the first degree, firearms not to be carried without a license, and delivery of a controlled substance - cocaine. On September 30, 2010, the trial court sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment for the murder conviction, and consecutive sentences of 1 to 2 years' incarceration for the firearms not to be carried without a license conviction and 2 to 4 years' incarceration on the delivery of a controlled substance conviction. Appellant appealed. This Court affirmed the judgment of sentence on August 2, 2011, and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied Appellant's petition for allowance of appeal on January 19, 2012.
See Commonwealth v. Williams , 1664 MDA 2010, August 2, 2011 (unpublished memorandum).
On October 5, 2012, Appellant filed the instant timely PCRA petition. The PCRA court held evidentiary hearings on August 12, 2014 and October 9, 2014, and denied the PCRA petition on April 9, 2015. Appellant timely appealed on May 7, 2015. Also on May 7, 2015, the PCRA court filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion that adopted the April 9, 2015 order as the court's 1925(a) opinion.
The PCRA court did not order, and Appellant did not file, a statement of matters complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
We note that, with the exception of the additional seventh issue alleging Appellant was prejudiced by the cumulative effect of prior counsel's ineffectiveness, these claims mirror exactly Appellant's claims raised in his PCRA petition.
I. [Whether] Appellant was denied his rights under Article 1 § 9 [of] the Constitution of Pennsylvania and the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of America to effective assistance of counsel in that trial counsel failed to investigate, interview and call to testify at trial an eyewitness to the crime[?]
II. [Whether c]ounsel was constitutionally ineffective under the Sixth Amendment for eliciting prejudicial testimony from a detective about the detective's personal opinion of the truthfulness of another witness' testimony. In that the detective[']s opinion of the witness' credibility supplanted the fact finder's determination, [Appellant's] Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated[?]Appellant's Brief, pp. 2-3.
III. [Whether d]irect appeal[] counsel was constitutionally ineffective under the Sixth Amendment for raising a claim challenging the trial court's denial of the motions to suppress and then failing to brief said issue, thereby waiving it[?]
IV. [Whether c]ounsel was constitutionally ineffective under the Sixth Amendment for failing to preserve and properly argue a hearsay objection to testimony that Ms. Aguilera called people and told them that Ms. Johnson was [a] snitch[?]
V. [Whether c]ounsel was constitutionally ineffective under the Sixth Amendment for opening the door to prejudicial testimony from a Commonwealth witness[?]
VI. [Whether c]ounsel was constitutionally ineffective under the Sixth Amendment for failing to object [to] questions to an eyewitness that confused and misle[]d the jury concerning the reliability of the witness' identification of the perpetrator[?]
VII. [Whether t]he [c]umulative [i]mpact of [c]ounsel's ineffectiveness entitles Appellant to relief[?]
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)).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Dennis E. Reinaker, we conclude Appellant's issues merit no relief. The PCRA court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented. See PCRA Court Opinion and Order, dated April 9, 2015, pp. 2-13 (finding: (1) trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to call eyewitness where Appellant failed to prove proposed witness's willingness to testify at trial, or that absence of such testimony prejudiced Appellant where court found witness's testimony at PCRA hearing incredible; (2) trial counsel was not ineffective for eliciting testimony from detective regarding his personal opinion as to truthfulness of another witness where detective commented on witness's truthfulness at time of interview, not trial, trial counsel had strategic reason for not objecting to detective's testimony, and trial court properly instructed jury regarding detective's testimony; (3) appellate counsel was not ineffective for raising but failing to brief meritless suppression issue on direct appeal; (4) trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to alleged hearsay testimony where trial court had ruled pre-trial that testimony would be admissible; (5) trial counsel was not ineffective for opening door to prejudicial testimony of Commonwealth witness where questioning was strategically reasonable to support defense contention police determined Appellant was the shooter and then attempted to garner evidence to support their theory of the crime; (6) trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to certain questions posed to eyewitness where counsel objected, trial court instructed prosecutor to rephrase question, prosecutor did rephrase question, and Appellant failed to prove prejudice from counsel's failure to further object). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the PCRA court's opinion.
Order affirmed.
Judge Shogan joins in the memorandum.
Judge Platt concurs in the result. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/2/2015
Image materials not available for display.