J-S60010-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
OMAR WILLIAMS,
Appellant No. 3135 EDA 2015
Appeal from the PCRA Order September 18, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0004913-2010
BEFORE: SHOGAN, OTT, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED OCTOBER 25, 2016
Appellant, Omar Williams, appeals from the order denying his first
petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”),
42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541–9546. We affirm.
The PCRA court described the facts of the crime as follows:
On November 10, 2005, Philadelphia Police Officers, David
Ewing, and his partner, Officer Austin, were on patrol in a
marked vehicle on the 600 block of North 52nd Street in
Philadelphia. N.T. 9/13/2010 at 8-10. At approximately 2:00
a.m., a person known to Officer Ewing (the “Source”)
approached the Officers and told them there was criminal
activity afoot at 52nd Street and Girard Avenue. Id. at 10.
Based on Officer Ewing’s experience of approximately one year
working in the 19th District, he knew this to be a high-crime
area. Id. at 8, 13-14.
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S60010-16
The Officers drove to 52nd Street and Girard Avenue. Id.
at 10. When they arrived, the Officers saw [Appellant], Omar
Williams, who matched the description provided by the Source.
Id. [Appellant] looked in the direction of the Officers and
immediately ran around the corner to the rear of the 600 block
of 52nd street. Id. at 11. Officer Ewing exited the vehicle and
pursued [Appellant] on foot. While running through a lot behind
642 North 52nd Street, [Appellant] tripped over a pile of tree
branches and fell to the ground. Id. Officer Ewing caught up to
[Appellant], who was lying face down. Id. Officer Ewing stood
[Appellant] up. Directly under [Appellant’s] stomach area on the
bundle of tree branches was a silver, black grip revolver; it was
loaded with six live rounds. Id. at 12-13. The gun was in good
condition which suggested it had not been sitting out, exposed to
the elements. Id. at 16. Moreover, the gun was valuable.
Officer Ewing estimated its street value at approximately
$600.00 to $700.00. Id. [Appellant] did not have a license to
carry a handgun. Id. at 17.
PCRA Court Opinion, 3/7/16, at 2–3.
The PCRA court described the procedural history as follows:
[Appellant], Omar Williams, was charged with Possession
of a Firearm Prohibited (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105), Carrying Firearms
Without a License (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6106), and Carrying Firearms
on Public Property in Philadelphia (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6108). A
waiver trial commenced on September 13, 2010. The
Commonwealth presented as evidence the live testimony of
Philadelphia Police Officer, David Ewing. The Defense presented
as evidence the live testimony of [Appellant’s] girlfriend,
Mariama Corbin. At the conclusion of the evidence, this Court
found [Appellant] guilty of all charges. On December 16, 2010,
this Court sentenced [Appellant] to an aggregate sentence of
four (4) to eight (8) years imprisonment.
On December 30, 2010, [Appellant] filed a Notice of
Appeal to the Superior Court; the appeal was discontinued on
October 13, 2011. On March 26, 2012, [Appellant] filed a pro se
PCRA Petition. On March 25, 2013, J. Matthew Wolfe, Esquire,
entered his appearance. Mr. Wolfe filed an Amended PCRA
Petition on March 6, 2014. The Commonwealth filed a Motion to
Dismiss on May 5, 2015. This Court granted the
Commonwealth’s Motion to Dismiss on July 31, 2015; a
-2-
J-S60010-16
Dismissal Notice under Rule 907 was filed on August 3, 2015.
On August 16, 2015, [Appellant] filed a pro se Objection to
Dismissal Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure
907. [Appellant] subsequently filed a Notice of Appeal to the
Superior Court on October 15, 2015. Pursuant to this [c]ourt’s
directive, [Appellant] filed his Statement of Matters Complained
of on Appeal on November 9, 2015.
PCRA Court Opinion, 3/7/16, at 1–2.
Appellant raises the following single issue on appeal:
1. Did the Appellant’s amended PCRA petition raise
substantial issues of disputed fact that needed to be
determined through the holding of an evidentiary hearing?
Appellant’s Brief at 8.
When reviewing the propriety of an order denying PCRA relief, this
Court is limited to determining whether the evidence of record supports the
conclusions of the PCRA court and whether the ruling is free of legal error.
Commonwealth v. Robinson, 139 A.3d 178, 185 (Pa. 2016). The PCRA
court’s findings will not be disturbed unless there is no support for them in
the certified record. Commonwealth v. Lippert, 85 A.3d 1095, 1100 (Pa.
Super. 2014).
“There is no absolute right to an evidentiary hearing on a PCRA
petition, and if the PCRA court can determine from the record that no
genuine issues of material fact exist, then a hearing is not necessary.”
Commonwealth v. Jones, 942 A.2d 903, 906 (Pa. Super. 2008) (quoting
Commonwealth v. Barbosa, 819 A.2d 81 (Pa. Super. 2003)). “[S]uch a
decision is within the discretion of the PCRA court and will not be overturned
-3-
J-S60010-16
absent an abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Mason, 130 A.3d 601,
617 (Pa. 2015).
We have considered Appellant’s argument, the relevant law, and the
certified record before us. We conclude that the thorough and detailed
opinion of the Honorable Paula Patrick filed on March 7, 2016, fully
addresses Appellant’s issue, and we rely upon the opinion to affirm dismissal
of Appellant’s PCRA petition without a hearing. In the event of further
proceedings in this matter, Appellant is directed to attach a copy of the
opinion.
Order affirmed.
Judge Strassburger joins the Memorandum.
Judge Ott concurs in the Result.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/25/2016
-4-
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY
FJIRS'f JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CfilM][NAL TRIAL DIVISION
ReCGiVed
M#Com. v. Williams, O.
Combined Opinion