J-S43005-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37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. 3503 EDA 2014
Appeal from the PCRA Order of November 12, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0000789-2012, CP-23-CR-0000793-
2012 and CP-23-CR-0003553-2013
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA AND OLSON, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED AUGUST 11, 2015
Appellant, Gary D. Williams, appeals pro se from the order entered on
November 12, 2014, dismissing his petition filed under the Post-Conviction
Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
The PCRA court summarized the facts and procedural posture
underlying this case:
On January 27, 2012, [Appellant] was arrested and charged
with theft by deception–false pretenses[,][1] in connection
with an incident which occurred on November 1, 2011[,
against victim L.H. This case was docketed at CP-23-CR-
000789-2012]. On January 26, 2012, [Appellant] was
arrested and charged with theft by deception–false
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3922(a)(1).
J-S43005-15
pretenses and conspiracy[2] . . . in connection with an
incident which occurred on January 25, 2012[, against
victim E.J. This case was docketed at CP-23-CR-000793-
2012]. [Appellant] was also charged with theft by
deception-false pretenses and conspiracy[3] . . . in
connection with an incident which occurred on November 1,
2011[, against victim G.H. This case was docketed at CP-
23-CR-003553-2013]. [Appellant] also had two similar
cases in Montgomery County. . . .
On October 22, 2013, [Appellant] entered negotiated guilty
pleas in all three cases and was sentenced to an aggregate
[term] of 24 to 48 months [in prison,] followed by [four]
years of probation to run concurrent to his sentences in
[the] Montgomery County [cases].
PCRA Court Opinion, 1/26/14, at 1-2 (some internal capitalization omitted).
Appellant did not file a notice of appeal from his judgment of sentence.
On January 2, 2014, Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition at all three
docket numbers and the PCRA court appointed counsel to represent
Appellant. However, on October 1, 2014, appointed counsel filed a “no
merit” letter and a petition to withdraw as counsel, pursuant to
Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) and Commonwealth
v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc).
On October 2, 2014, the PCRA court granted counsel’s petition to
withdraw and provided Appellant with notice that it intended to dismiss
Appellant’s PCRA petition in 20 days, without holding a hearing. PCRA Court
Order, 10/2/14, at 1; see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(1). On November 12,
____________________________________________
2
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3922(a)(1) and 903(c), respectively.
3
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3922(a)(1) and 903(c), respectively.
-2-
J-S43005-15
2014, Appellant responded to the PCRA court’s Rule 907 notice by,
essentially, repeating the claims he raised in his pro se PCRA petition. The
PCRA court finally dismissed Appellant’s PCRA petition on November 12,
2014 and Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal to this Court.
Appellant numbers five issues on appeal:
1. Can a police officer give perjurious testimony in an
official proceeding of [an] official matter against his own
official document when he doesn’t believe the statement to
be true in order to justify making [Appellant] a suspect in
his criminal investigation, and believed to be a [credible]
witness[?]
2. Can a police officer create characteristics of his own, that
are in discrepancy with a description given by the
complainant, to compose a photo-array line-up?
3. Can a trial judge refuse to rule on a motion when the
record supports the finding that [] Appellant’s
[constitutional] rights were violated?
4. Does a plea[] agreement permit the lower court to
practice corruption during the legal proceeding, when the
record supports the evidence?
5. Should have the private citizen criminal complaint gone
before the attorney for the Commonwealth alone with the
complainant under oath before an arrest warrant was
issued?
Appellant’s Brief at 1 (some internal capitalization omitted).
As we have stated:
[t]his Court’s standard of review regarding an order
dismissing a petition under the PCRA is whether the
determination of the PCRA court is supported by evidence of
record and is free of legal error. In evaluating a PCRA
court’s decision, our scope of review is limited to the
findings of the PCRA court and the evidence of record,
-3-
J-S43005-15
viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party at
the trial level. We may affirm a PCRA court’s decision on
any grounds if it is supported by the record.
Commonwealth v. Rivera, 10 A.3d 1276, 1279 (Pa. Super. 2010) (internal
citations omitted).
All of Appellant’s claims on appeal are waived, as Appellant’s brief to
this Court merely consists of a rambling factual narrative that is divorced
from legal argument or citation to relevant legal authority. As this Court has
continuously explained, we are not permitted to “act as counsel for an
appellant and develop arguments on his behalf.” Rabatin v. Allied Glove
Corp., 24 A.3d 388, 396 (Pa. Super. 2011). Since Appellant’s brief would
require that we identify the appropriate legal issues and then craft
Appellant’s legal arguments for him, we must hold that Appellant’s claims on
appeal are waived. See Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 108 A.3d 739, 766
(Pa. 2014) (“[u]nder Pennsylvania law, pro se defendants are subject to the
same rules of procedure as are represented defendants. See
Commonwealth v. Williams, 896 A.2d 523, 534 (Pa. 2006) (pro se
defendants are held to same standards as licensed attorneys). Although the
courts may liberally construe materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se
status confers no special benefit upon a litigant, and a court cannot be
expected to become a litigant’s counsel”) (emphasis added).
Order affirmed.
-4-
J-S43005-15
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/11/2015
-5-