J-S32014-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
MICHAEL WILLIAMS,
Appellant No. 2836 EDA 2015
Appeal from the PCRA Order August 10, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-48-CR-0001102-2013
BEFORE: BOWES, MUNDY AND PLATT,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED JULY 21, 2016
Michael Williams appeals from the August 10, 2015 order denying him
PCRA relief. We affirm.
On January 16, 2013, East Police Department Inspector Salvatore
Crisafulli was investigating the manufacture of methamphetamine at 1415
Pine Street, Easton. At 4:00 a.m., he conducted a trash pull, and police
confiscated two trash bags from trash cans located on the curb in front of
that location. Since an intense chemical odor and a white gas was
emanating from the bags, the Pennsylvania Police State Clandestine
Response Team (the “Team”) was contacted to process the items and
control exposure to hazardous chemicals. The following items were found in
the trash bags in question: 1) broken batteries, including lithium strips and
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S32014-16
battery hulls; 2) a brown liquid in a bottle labeled as waste; 3) a melted
bottle containing a white solid substance; 4) starting fluid; 5) ammonia and
PH test kits; 6) empty packages of pseudoephedrine-based medicine; 7) ice
packs containing ammonia nitrate; 8) a broken pipe used to consume
methamphetamine; and 9) several articles of mail addressed to Appellant at
the 1415 Pine Street address. The Team concluded that these items
included components and chemicals needed to manufacture
methamphetamine.
Inspector Crisafulli completed an affidavit of probable cause to search
1415 Pine Street, and a warrant was issued on January 17, 2013. It was
executed the same day, and the following items were recovered at that
location: 1) packs of cold compresses that had been sliced open; 2) a can of
starting fluid; 3) a box of baking soda; 4) two containers of salt; 5) a small
glass dish and aluminum foil; 6) an ammonia nitrate test kit; 7) isopropyl
alcohol; 8) a full-mouth facemask respirator; and 9) a box containing pipes
utilized to consume methamphetamine. Appellant was charged with
operating a methamphetamine laboratory, possession of red phosphorus and
other substances with the intent to manufacture a controlled substance,
possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of a controlled substance
with intent to manufacture or deliver it.
At trial, the Commonwealth’s witnesses included Inspector Crisafulli,
and Rebecca Patrick, who was a laboratory technician with the Team.
-2-
J-S32014-16
Inspector Crisafulli introduced a print-out from Meth Check, an online
database tracking the purchase of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, which
are used to manufacture methamphetamine. The Meth Check document
indicated that Appellant’s last purchase of a drug used to manufacture
methamphetamine, which was pseudoephedrine, occurred on January 6,
2013. As of that date, Appellant was legally prevented from purchasing any
more of that substance for thirty days.
Exhibits included a videotaped statement Appellant gave to police and
letters that he wrote to Inspector Crisafulli. In the statement, Appellant
boasted about his knowledge of the local methamphetamine market and his
experience in producing that substance. Appellant told police that the
remnants of the methamphetamine laboratory discovered in the trash pull
was not his work, even though letters addressed to him were located in the
same trash bag, since the components indicated that the laboratory was
amateurish and beneath his abilities. In his letters, Appellant delineated his
extensive knowledge of cooking methamphetamine, volunteered to aid the
police in investigating other methamphetamine laboratories, and examined
the evidence obtained in the present case.
Ms. Patrick was qualified as an expert witness in drug analysis and the
clean-up of of hazardous materials from methamphetamine laboratories.
She authored two laboratory reports. In the first one, Ms. Patrick focused on
evidence obtained through the trash pull and reviewed the one-pot method
-3-
J-S32014-16
of methamphetamine cooking, which she stated was commonly used in
Pennsylvania. Ms. Patrick concluded that the trash pull indicated that there
had been an unsuccessful attempt to manufacture methamphetamine. Ms.
Patrick also testified about the empty packets of cold medicine found in the
trash and indicated that they contained 8.2 grams of pseudoephedrine,
which could be used to produce the same amount of methamphetamine.
Ms. Patrick also stated that she tested the liquid in the bottle marked as
waste and discovered during the trash pull. The liquid was positive for the
presence of methamphetamine crystals and contained other by-products
from producing that drug. Ms. Patrick’s second report examined the items
seized pursuant to the search warrant. Ms. Patrick discussed the inventory
list and explained how some of the items seized could be used to
manufacture methamphetamine and were consistent with the one-pot
method.
A jury convicted Appellant of all the offenses. After receiving a
sentence of six and one-quarter to twenty-one years imprisonment,
Appellant filed a direct appeal. We rejected his argument that his
convictions were not supported by sufficient evidence and were against the
weight of the evidence, but remanded for resentencing since Appellant had
received a mandatory minimum sentence in violation of Alleyne v. United
States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013). Commonwealth v. Williams, 116 A.3d
-4-
J-S32014-16
689 (Pa.Super. 2014) (unpublished memorandum). On March 6, 2015,
Appellant was re-sentenced and received the same term of imprisonment.
On April 9, 2015, Appellant filed a timely pro se PCRA petition, counsel
was appointed, and the court conducted a hearing. This appeal followed the
denial of relief. Appellant presents these issues for our review:
1. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a
suppression motion challenging the validity of a search warrant?
2. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge
the scientific evidence?
3. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to
remarks made in the closing argument by the Commonwealth?
4. Whether trial counsel was ineffective in failing to call Dawn
Stocker as a witness.
Appellant’s brief at 3.
Initially, we outline our standard of review of a PCRA order.
Under the applicable standard of review, we must determine
whether the ruling of the PCRA court is supported by the record
and is free of legal error. Commonwealth v. Marshall, 596 Pa.
587, 947 A.2d 714, 719 (2008). The PCRA court's credibility
determinations, when supported by the record, are binding on
this Court. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 600 Pa. 329, 966 A.2d
523, 532, 539 (2009). However, this Court applies a de novo
standard of review to the PCRA court's legal conclusions.
Commonwealth v. Rios, 591 Pa. 583, 920 A.2d 790, 810
(2007).
Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18 A.3d 244, 259 (Pa. 2011). Accord
Commonwealth v. Bardo, 105 A.3d 678, 685 (Pa. 2014) (“If supported by
the record, the PCRA court's credibility determinations and factual findings
-5-
J-S32014-16
are binding on this Court; however, we apply a de novo standard of review
to the PCRA court's legal conclusions.”).
Appellant averments all relate to his insistence that he received
ineffective assistance from trial counsel. In this respect, we observe:
Counsel is presumed effective, and in order to overcome
that presumption a PCRA petitioner must plead and prove that:
(1) the legal claim underlying the ineffectiveness claim has
arguable merit; (2) counsel's action or inaction lacked any
reasonable basis designed to effectuate petitioner's interest; and
(3) counsel's action or inaction resulted in prejudice to
petitioner. With regard to reasonable basis, the PCRA court does
not question whether there were other more logical courses of
action which counsel could have pursued; rather, the court must
examine whether counsel's decisions had any reasonable basis. .
. . To demonstrate prejudice, a petitioner must show that there
is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's actions or
inactions, the result of the proceeding would have been different.
Failure to establish any prong of [this test, which is known as
the] Strickland/Pierce test will defeat an ineffectiveness claim.
Commonwealth v. Mason, 130 A.3d 601, 618 (Pa. 2015) (citations,
quotation marks and footnote omitted).
After careful consideration of Appellant’s averments of ineffectiveness,
we conclude that they are wholly without merit. We affirm on the thorough
and well-reasoned August 10, 2015 opinion of the Honorable Stephen G.
Baratta.
Order affirmed.
-6-
J-S32014-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/21/2016
-7-
Circulated 06/30/2016 01:44 PM
\
..: • ~ i, :,,.
:
.IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF NORTHAMPTON COUNTY
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
CRIMINAL DIVISION
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
No, CP-48-CR .. 0001102.,2013
v.
MICHAEL WILLIAMS,
;.h,
Defendant ~·; n '.::::
;" ~ •1 ••.. l
: ·!~·~:··.~ ;. : , ....
•
OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT ;
•
:f.·{: '. ;
• ·.:. 'tt '"" • •
B~·fore .the Court for disposition Is Defendant's, Ml~hael Willlams:)pet1t)'p for·
: ~: .' I> !' • : ~• 0 I
1r
reUef
,,
filel pursuant to the Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 PA.CON~'.'i+Ar.A·N~.
. §§
"I
9541-9546.
... ••.•• ,, ... _ ~j"':
. .
: .•:~···: i~·-;
I ...
I, :Fa~tu~a·i Background and Procedural History ·
On January· 16, 2013, Inspector Salvatore Crlsafulli, of the Easton Police
Department was participating in an /nvestlgatlon related to the manutactore of controlled
substances from .a resldence !dentified as 1415 Pine Street In fhe City of Easton.
'.
Northampton County. Pennsylvania. At approximately 4:00 a.m., Inspector· Crlsafulli
. .-
conducted a "trash pull'\ In which the police took two bags of trash from three curbside
trashcans in front of 1415 Pine Street. The trash bags were transported to the Easton
Police Department for examination. Inspector Crlsafulll testified that there was a strong.
intense ch~;mlcal,p?or coming from the bags, along with a white gas.
•;
...The P~pnsy!.v:~nia State Clandestine Response ,earn was contacted to aid In
processing }he lf,erns and to limit the hazardous exposure of the officers. The Items
recovered f;om';:t_H-~'·1rash pull included (1) broken batteries, lnciudlng lithium strips and
,-
1)
L .: .. :r
battery hulls; (2) a · brownish liquid In a Pepsi bottle marked as "waste"; (3) a melted
.:
bottle with a white solid gassing substance; (4) starting fluld; (5) an ammonia test kit and
I
. '
' ,·
·.j ••.
:'/ . 'l .: • ·,
PH test . kit; (~)'empty blister packs of pseudoephedrine-based medicine; (7)
.
ice packs,
:
. \~ ·/T~~ .
· . which contain .ammonta nitrate In small round balls; and (8) a broken meth pipe. The
. .
Clan Lab Team confirmed that a clandestine metharnphetamine lab was recovered as
:-.;:'/.·
well as the lngiedients used to manufacture methamphetamlne. Additionally, the officers
recovered from the trash bags several articles of mail and paperwork addressed to
Michael Williams with the address of 1415 Pine Street.
tnspector CrisafulH presented an appllcatlon for a search warrant and affidavit of
probable cause on January 17, 2013. The search warrant for 1415 Pine Street was
signed by the lss.uing authority, Elizabeth A. Romig, Senior Magisterial District Judge,
. '
The search warrant was executed on January 17, 2013 and the officers selzed (1)
•• 0 0 tO T
packs of cold compresses, which were cut open; (2) a can of Prestone Starting Ffuld,
unopened: (3) · (box of baking soda; (4) two containers of salt; (5) a smalLg!ass dish
.:: J ~.: : •:
and.
. '
alumJnum:.f6"i!; (6) an ammonia nitrate test kit; (7) lsopropyl alcohol; (8) a full-mouth
·:
facernaskresplrator: and (9) a box containing rneth pipes. Wflllams was subsequently
'} ! : I~-~!;• • ·.
charged w1th-:qH¢.rat1ng a methamphetamine laboratory; possession of red phosphorus•
. ,
etc. with lntent to manufacture a controlled substance; use of, or possession with intent
to use, drug paraphernalia; and manufacture, delivery, or possession with Intent to
manufacture or deliver a controlled substance. 1 A jury trial was held from July 8 through
July 1 q, 2013.
Followlng a jury trial, Wilflarns was found gullty of all charges. In so dolng, the jury
also concluded that Williams had manufactured between 5 and 10 grams of
methamohetemlne. Subsequent thereto, this Court sentenced Williams on Sep,!ember 6,
1
35 P .q.i §§" x.780-113.4(a)(1), 780-113. 1 (a)(3), 780-113(a)(32), 780-113(a)(3)l
respectively.
2
. ·,
2013 toan aggregate period of 6 Y-i to 21 years' incarceration. On September 61 2013,
Wllli~m:filed post-sentence motions pro se. On September 9, 2013, detense counsel
was dlsoharqed, as Williams raised complaints of Ineffectiveness of counsel, and
• :•l
conflict .. counset Brian Monahan, E:squlre, was appointed to represent Williams
I!~·· . ~
.';° ..
regardint1.. post-sentence matters .
:i.
· · 'On s·eptember 16, 2013, Williams filed a pro se notice of appeal to the Superior
. .
Court o(Pen:nsylvanla. Consequently, this court found ·that Williams' notice divested us
. 1:-' :.::,; '
of Jurisdiction and entered an order denying said motions pursuant to Pa.RAP. 1701 (a)
on September 24, 2013. On or about December 61 2013, the Superlor Court remanded
the matter back to this Court for the filing of counseled post-sentence motions nuno pro
• • I • '
~ .-·
tune. On March 13, 2014, Wiiiiams filed post-sentence motions, which this Court denied
.
on April 15, 2014. Williams then filed a timely appeal to the Superior Court raising
challenges to the sufficiency and weight of the evidence and· both the discretionary
aspects of his sentence and the legality of this sentence In light of Alleyne· v, United
. .
,,
States, 133 S.Ct 2151 (2013). On December 16, 20141 the Superior Court affirmed
. .
Witllams' 9.pnvlctfqns;
;~ .
however vacated Williams' sentence and remanded the. matter to
.
. . . .'·
this. Court:for resentenclnq without consideration of the mandatory minimum sentences
. ·l f .
~
provided in 18, ..PA.CONS.STAT.ANN. § 7508(a)(4){f). On March 6, 20151 this Court
~ . : ,· :·, .. :·. ~
resentenced Williams. Williams flied the instant prose PCRA petition on April 9, 2015.
Brian Monahan, Esquire, was appointed to continue representing Wllllams in these
PCRA proceedings. This Court held a hearing on Wllllamsr PCRA petition on June 11,
2015.
3
·:'.
··-'h)i
II. PCRA Standard of Review
;,
When reviewing an order dismissing a PCRA petition, the Superior Court must
determf~e whether the rullng of the PCRA court rs supported by. record evidence and is
free of legal error. Commonwealth v, Burkett, 5 A.3d 1260, 1267 (Pa, Super. 2010).
"Great deference is granted to the findings of the PCRA court, and these findings will
not be d.isturbed unless they have no support ln the certified· record." Commonwealth
v, cener, 21 ~.3d 680, 682 (Pa. Super. 2011) (cltatlon omitted).
. Ill. :··.
Discussion
,·. ,;·i
;•::· !•'1;:
Ineffective of Counsel- General Standard
. i:-· The· i;~w J~~kumes counsel has rendered effective assistance. Comm9nwealth
• • $ I
v.
.'·.
~I.
~
I~ .
/:
j: :
.
Willlams, 597. · Pa. 109 950 A.2d 294 (2008). When asserting a clalrn of Ineffective
1
..... ·,··~
assistance of'c~unsel, the petitioner is required to demonstrate that: (1) the un~erlying
claim Is of arguable merit; (2) counsel had no reasonable strategic basis for his action or
Inaction: and, (3) but for the errors and omissions of counsel, there Is a reasonable
probability that the outcome of the proceedings would have been. different.
Commonwealth v, Kimball, 555 Pa. 299 724 A.2d 326 (1999). The failure to satisfy
1
any prong. of the test for Ineffectiveness wlll cause the clalm to fail. Williams, supra.
"The threshold inquiry In ineffectiveness claims Is whether the Issue/argument/tactic
which counsel,: lias foregon~ and which forms the basis for the assertion of
. :-,
ineffecUv~ness)if of arguable meriC." Commonwealth v. Pierce, 537 Pa.'. 514, 524,
6~5 A.2d \189, A ~4 (1994). "Counsel cannot
~! ' $ • • I
be fou.nd ineffective for falllng to pursue a
'
baseless -or
'.\"
11\~titless
·:. . .
claim." Commonwealth v, Poplawski, 852 A.2d 323, 327 (Pa.
.-
Super. 20Q4). :)}(
:·t ·:.
4
once · 'this threshold Is met we apply the 'reasonable basis' test to
9:eterrnihe whether counsel's chosen co.urse was designed to effectuate
his client' s Interests, If we conclude that the particular course chosen by
c:9unseF:;had some reasonable basis, our inquiry ceases and counsel's
assistance Is deemed effective.
'··.:· :·.·. ,i:
Pierce, ~upr1 -~t 524, 645 A.2d at 194-195 (internal citations omitted).
Prejudice Is established when [a defendant] demonstrates that counsel's
chosen course of action had an adverse effect on th·e outcome of the
proceedings. The defendant must. show that there is a reasonable
probablllly that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the
proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probabllity )s a
probabllily sufficient to undermine confidence In the outcome. In [Klniba/1,
supra], we held that a "crlmlnal defendant alleging prejud{ce must 'show
th~t counsel's errors were so serious as t9 deprive the defendant of a falr
trial, a trial whose result Is reliable."
CoP.Jmo.JJwealth v, 9,hambers, 570 Pa. 31 21-22, 807 A.2d 872, 883 (2002) (some
internal cltatlons and quotation marks omitted) .
."_ Ineffectiveness of Counsel- Fa/lure to File a Motion to Suppress/~',.,
1Jh1s firit issue, Willlams avers that trial counsel was lne~ective
. .:t -::;_;';!
/~ failing to
. ch.allenge· the:'Jklidlty of the search warrant by flllng an omnibus pre-trla] motion to
. '•,·: , ..
;. I t •.'· \
suppress.' w\hia:ms
. ·-~ ~.:
submits that raising a Fourth Amendment claim 'would have
resulted I~ the excluslon of evidence that was unconstltutlonally seized from an illegal
l
search or('January 17, 201311 wher~ the "police executed a 'force entry without a search
warrant oriany offlcial document au.thorlzlng them do so." See Pro Se Brief In Support of
Post-Conviction
...
Relief Act, 5/4/151 at 2J3. Further, Williams avows that the "affldavlt
. .
itself failed
~... to establlsh probable cause to issue the warrant" and thus, trial counsel
should haye filed a motion to suppress. The crux of WJJllams' argument at tre time of
the PCRA_, hearing and, m his repeatedly pro se filings to this Court Is that, counsel
failed to provlde, bim with a copy of the signed search warrant and that In his words "[the
I :-, '.<~ /
. ··.,·
:\. 5
,·,_ .·•
. '~
.;'-._,;\.\·_:)
pollce] .entered [his] house with no paperwork at all" and as such "the search was not
legal.'t s:ee N.T. 1 PCRA Hearing, 6/11~15 at 14.
1
Where the ineffectiveness claim is based on the failure of counsel. to move for
suppression o'i evidence,
·: ·.·:
"the defendant must establish that there was no. reasonable
basis f9r not }ursuing the suppression claim and that If the evidence had been
£:J. '; •
suppress,ed, .th~re is a reasonable probability the verdict would have been more
.. . ·.; .,· . .
favorable," Co'fi/monwea/th v. Arch, 654 A.2d 11411 1143 (Pa. Super. 1995) (citation
•r. ~) j ~ I
~·
omitted). Thus, we must first determine If there Is merit to the claim that the evidence
seized fr?m Willlams' residence should have been suppressed due to the lack of a
search warrant or that the affidavit Jacked probable cause to Issue.
Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides as follows:
The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and
possession from unreasonable searches and seizures, and no warrant to
· search any place or to seize any person or things shall Issue without
describing them as nearly as may be, nor without probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation subscribed to by the afflant.
The·
~ . ·.
protection
\ .
provided by Article I, Section 8 "extends to areas ·Where an
individual ·has ateasonable expectation of privacy." Commonwealth v, Shaw, 564 Pa,
~-- ~- : .: ~ 1 :
617,
:-· -.;
770 ,6;:2d
·:...
2~$.
!·._··.,;..
299 (2001). Pursuant to the so-called exclusionary
•
rule, "(eJvidence
discovered· . as·..······a , ...· result of a search that violates the fundamental constitutional
. i -.'' -:"
guarantees ofArtlcle I, Section 8 will be suppressed." Commonwealth v, Gordon, 546
Pa. 651 68~ A.2d 253, 256 (1996). Thus, It is Important to dis11ngulsh between a
vlolatlon of the fundamental constitutional guarantees of Article I, Section 8 and the
mere technJ.cal noncompllan?e wi.th the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure. The
Supreme court of Pennsylvanfa has in fact, spec!fically 0 reject[edJ the automatic
6
"'•: ., .. :·:
' Ii,: ! -~.
app/ica\ion of the exclusionary rule to suppress evidence selzed pursuant to a search
,,
which In some way vlolates the Pennsylvania Rules of Crimlnal Procedure relating to
the issuance
. and execution of search warrants." Commonwealth v, Ger~ld
. Mason,
507 Pa. 396, 490 A.2d 421, 423 (1985). Indeed, ft Is only when vlolatlons of the Rules
"assume. constitutional dimensions and/or substantially prejudice the accused" that
suppresslon may be necessary. Id. at 425. ·
in .order to insure the protections provided under the Fourth Amendment to the
United States
.
Constitution and Article I, Section
•'
a of our Pennsylvania Constitution
...
. :: : I ·: >- ·~
against unreasonable searches' and seizures, ·both the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
~nd · the ;:Unlt~idy:~tates Supre~e Court require law enforcement offic.ers to ob.tai~ a
'
Judicialliissued:'$earch
..
warrant, absent certain exigent circumstances. Commonwealth
•
v, Chandler, q0.5 Pa, 113 122, 1 4 77 A.2d 851, 855 (1984). A prior Independent judlclal
:_i· e
determination of probable cause Is essential:
It Is· not enough, absent exigent.circumstances, that a policeman believe
thefacts he has are probable cause for a search warrant. The people of
thls~state and nation are constitutionally entitled to an Independent 'judfclal
determination. of probable cause before they must open to the policeman's
knock at the door fn the night. Moreover, that determination must be made
before and not after the search. The written affidavit of probable cause
simply Insures an accurate record of the verlfled (sworn) facts the issuing
author.Uy had when he made his determination before the event
***
Reasonable judges and legal scholars may well differ over .the
technicalities of how best to memorialize the facts the Issuer of the warrant
had\~1hen;he .Issued It and how technical courts should be in reviewlng1his
deolslon ·t~ . lssue. We believe, however, none ever doubted the necessity
of the ex~r?lse of j~dicial discretion. .
/d.:':(dtatlons omr(t~d).
· At the tfrh{~t the PCRA hearing, Wllllams argued that he instructed trial counsel
to ffle a mStto~·\g: suppress; however) counsel "didn't do anything." See N.T., PCRA
7
·'·
':,
Hearing; 6/1
•.
v_~:s. at 12. To the contrary, Attorney Shipman testified that he :~rd
.
not recall
William~:· asking' him to do that but "he may have," Id. at 44. According to counsel 11if
t:
-··
'.;; .
{Williams] dld, [he] would have told him that {he] would not have filed it because the
..
·
warrant :~p~ci'~,r~d to comply," .Id. More importantly, if the warrant had any Irregularities
11
·.'.
..
';._•.··
that (heJ::.observed" Attorney Shipman "would have tiled a motion to address that." Id.
Attorney Shipman's trial strategy Is sound In this regard. Senior Magisterial
Dlstrlct J,udge Elizabeth Romig swore the oath of Inspector CrlsafuHI on ~aduary 171
2013 and, concluded that probable cause existed for the Issuance of the warrant.
Contra~.to Williams repeated proclamation otherwise, the Jurat2 as well the slqnature of
th.e Issuing authority is affixetj. to ,t_he warrant. Further, our review qf the "Application for
Search Warranr and Authorlzatlon" trne-stamped and flied with this Court on January
t
28, 2013:_.indlc~t~s that all of the other procedural mandates with respect to th~ Issuance
:.!.! : ':': .
~J
of a search warrant have been fully complied with. Specifically, In the "Search Warrant"
~· I ;, t
s~dion of*the -~:~rrant, Sr. Magisterial District Judge Romig marked an "x" ~e; to the
line indlc-~tiniva :.: daytime warrant and wrote "1 :30 PM o'clock January 191 201311
-, ,·..
lndloating)he la$t date on which the warrant could be executed. She checked the box
under 11Slgnature of Issuing Authority" lndlcatrng her title as 11Senlor Magisterial District
. .
Judge11 an~ wrote in the date on whfch her commission expires, usr.M.D.,J.". Even
though Williams Insists otherwise, the search warrant was not sealed.
Atto,rney Shipman readfly admitted that "Initially In discovery [he] received a
j ,;·
search warrant" which "was not completed": however, as he recalls "somewhere near
2
The jura( ls the;; certificate signed by the judicial officer stating that the affidavit of
probable cause'" was sworn to and subscribed by the affiant before her, See
Commom{ealth'.Y., Vaughn, 789 A2d 261, n. 1 (Pa. Super, 2001).
t~~; ~,.: .:· r. ·.,
·
8
<~ . . . ;I
trial, maybe even the first day" he was provided with '1a copy of the signed warrant
1·. :
which was filed with this Court. Id. at 43. Attorney Shipman testifJed that '.he provlded
Williams with a copy of the warrant. Id. The search warrant was valid 'and properly
executed, WIHlams invokes no other constltutlonal violations with respect to the warrant
., .
other than a ~:rbcedural one. As such, counsel cannot be deemed lneffectiV.e in falling to
t,·· .
~· ··: <:. ·'._~ ~ .
. pursuea baseless suppression motion.
..
•, ,·
..
Ineffectiveness of Counsel - Failure to Challenge the Scientific Evldr:ince
. :~ .
;
N·ext, '.Williams argues that counsel was Ineffective in failing to hire an expert to
.\ : .
test the' results in order to challenge the scientific evidence presented by
... C such, Williams argues that Ms. P.atrick's
·,
report was what he coins "a dry lab report" meaning "a report without the test.certificate
attached to it." fc(.Williams avows that trial counsel was Ineffective in falling tq/challenge
;:.:,. :
14
:·,'.···,.
the prosecutor may fairly respond to points made in the defense closing. Moreover,
prosecutorlal misconduct will not be found where comments were based on the
evidence or proper inferences therefrom ... Commonwealth 11
v, Hogentogfer. 53 A.3d
866, 878 (Pa-Super, 2012), appe8f denled1 620 Pa. 720. 69 A.3d 600 (201-3) (quotation
. .
. . . ;
omitted).. . Her~;:
:
ithe prosecutor was. merely commenting on the evidence presented
··: ...: ~ . . . by \
the Co~mo~~~alth's
·. .....·. witnesses.
.
The comments were clearly derived from the
·.
evidence
.
. :·
and tesfmony.adduced
. . .. at trial or from proper Inferences drawn therefrom and thus,
.
~ .·. .
were entl,rely,p:ermlsslble. A~ such, trial counsel cannot be deemed Ineffective In falling
to objectto the prosecutor's remarks.
. . .ln_effectiveness
. . . . . . - Failure to Call a Witness.
of Trial Counsel
Williams next avers that counsel was ineffective in falling to call his sister, Dawn
Stocker as
.. a witness
. at the time. of irial. To succeed on a claim of.. counsel's
ineffective!)ess
.
for failure to call a witness a petitioner must prove that "the . wltness
:
rJ
existed, the witness (was} ready and willing to testify, and the absence· of the witness[']
,.• . .
testimony prejudlced petitioner and denied him a fair trial." commonweettnv. Luster,
: . .
.· 71 A.3d 1029,
. . . 1047
, .. ·: ~ ;
(Pa. super.
. 2013) (en bane) (citations omitted).
'.
Acc~rdln~jo Williams, Dawn Stocker was ready and willing to testify on his
/ ', ·~·:· .. ~·
behalf. ln . suppc,tfof his claim, Williams attached an affidavit from Dawn Stocker which
',~ . ~ ... . .
. ··.. . .
provided as tdllows:
. ·:(· .
. , ... ,.
:,_
·
Mike L. Wiiiiams did not live at 120 A. 151h Street. I Dawn Stocker rent the
apt. 'at the time I was In a work-release program, the apt. was raided, the
police were not there for Mike Wiiliams they came In looking for a guy my
dau9hter was dating who was also selling heroin.
See unsworn Declaration to Authorities, Dawn M. Stocker, 3/2/15. At the time of the
PCRA hearing, Williams stated "this cop lied on the witness stand about [his)
15
··..:·
.i .: ··.·i
.....
lnvolvementtbecause he had "a statement from Dawn Stocker saying that she was the
one that was renting" the property. See N. T., PCRA Hearing, 6/11/15, at 28, 30.
Williams· avers that counsel was Ineffective in falling to call Dawn Stocker to testify that
"she was the renter of the house when the place was raided on January 111h" to rebut
Inspector Crisafulll's testimony that the police "came In looking for [him]": and, ''they
didn't" because according to Williams "they went In for Denny lnokay, Dawn Stocker
and another guy in there." Id: at 29. Williams Insisted that he "was not a target for that
.
. .
house." Id, at 32.
~- .. :.
: .'. ::, :: \
While iH~ apparent that the witness existed and was willing to testify at trial
..... ::i.· .Ai~ornei::Shipi·~n. . ~~~t!f.!~d .~~at. he remembers _'1sp~~kl~g with (P~Yi!'I. §_~;~k~r)" and
I , : :
ultimately'"d~clded not to call her as a witness" "because of credlblllty issues relate to
: . . ..~.: : . ;
her prio(_recor?,-'.' Id. at 45. Williams is however unable to show how the absence of
Dawn Stooker's testimony prejudiced him. As this Court pointed out at the PCRA
hearing, how is it."relevant fhatthe police went to another house that they believed-was
Involved in methamphetamine" and "they thought [Williams) would be IA the house." Id.
(emphasis: .added). That residence and its occupants may have been under
investigation; however, the fact remains that, followlng a "trash pull" on January 16,
2013, outs/de of Williams' residence, 1415 Pine Street, evidence was uncovered and,
the police obtained a search warrant. The search warrant was executed on January 17,
2013 andthe offj~ers seized (1) packs of cold compresses, which were cut open; (2) a
• :.... ;:. •,:·• • : :• I
can of Pres tone ·;Starting Fluid, unopened; (3) a box of baking soda; (4) two containers
I. •;,lj
of salt; (5) . a $·i)lall glass dish and aluminum foil; (6) an ammonia nitrate test kit; (7)
·,·.
isopropyl a(coh~.1;. (8) a full~mouth facemask resplrator: and (9) a box containing meth
16
pipes. Accor~lngly, counsel cannot be deemed ineffective in falllng to call Dawn Stocker
. ..,·,,. . ..
.... }··;~> :·:
as a wltness:?s :her proffered testimony would have been Irrelevant and, not have aided
· :(_: ·,· :' -, ·.'.: ...
fhe defense. · :
..
....·.·
:
. :.:
·.
' ..
BY THE COURT:·
s
. . .
•..
:•,
...,i·
. . ·.; : -~
17
.-- •, ' ... .
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF NORTHAMPTON COUNTY
COMMONWEAL TH OF PENNSYLVANIA
CRIMINAL DIVISION
COMMONWEAL TH OF PENNSYLVANIA
No. CP .. 48-CR·0001102"2013
v.
MICHAEL WILLIAMS,
Defendant
. · . . r"~ ORDER OF COUR.T
AND NQW, this /I) day of August, 2015, upon consideration of Defendant's,
. .
Michael ·Williams petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post-Convlctlon Relief Act
. .... . . . .... . . ..... . . ...
(PCM)°, 42°PA . CONS.STAT.ANN. §§ 9541-9546, said petition is hereby DENIEq.
BY THE COURT:
'\ ~~ f~:.
STEPHEN G, BA ATTA, P.J.
,• .
,• .