J-S52022-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
DARNELL WILLIAMS
Appellant No. 2007 EDA 2015
Appeal from the PCRA Order May 29, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No: CP-51-CR-0008302-2009
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., STABILE, and STRASSBURGER, * JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED DECEMBER 22, 2016
Appellant, Darnell Williams, appeals from the May 29, 2015 order
entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (“PCRA court”)
denying relief under the Post-Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§
9541-46. Appellant’s sole issue on appeal is whether the PCRA court erred
in denying the PCRA petition without a hearing. Upon review, we affirm.
The PCRA court summarized the procedural background of this matter
in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, which we incorporate herein by reference.
PCRA Court Opinion, 11/4/15, at 1-2. Briefly, after a jury trial that occurred
fom June 8 through June 17, 2010, Appellant was found guilty of first-
degree murder, violations of the uniform firearms act (“VUFA”), and
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S52022-16
possession of an instrument of crime (“PIC”). Appellant was sentenced to
life without the possibility of parole on the murder charge, and sentenced
concurrently to terms of two and one-half years for VUFA and PIC.
After the PCRA Court granted a previous PCRA petition to reinstate
Appellant’s direct appellate rights, this Court affirmed his convictions on
direct appeal on April 17, 2012. See Commonwealth v. Williams, No.
1312 EDA 2011, unpublished memorandum at 1 (Pa. Super. filed April 17,
2012).
Appellant filed the instant PCRA petition on October 25, 2013. The
PCRA court issued a 907(1) Notice on June 18, 2014, and dismissed the
petition without a hearing on May 29, 2015. Appellant filed a timely notice
of appeal on June 29, 2015.
Appellant raises a sole issue on appeal. “Did the Honorable PCRA
[c]ourt err when it dismissed [Appellant’s] [c]ounseled [p]etition for PCRA
relief without a [h]earing and all where [Appellant] properly pled and would
have been able to prove that he was entitled to relief if only had he been
granted a hearing[.]” Appellant’s Brief at 3.
“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) (citing
Commonwealth v. Barbosa, 819 A.2d 81 (Pa. Super. 2003)). An
ineffective assistance of counsel claim “must meet all three prongs of the
-2-
J-S52022-16
test for ineffectiveness, if the court can determine without an evidentiary
hearing that one of the prongs cannot be met, then no purpose would be
advanced by holding an evidentiary hearing.” Jones, 942 A.2d at 906. All
of the underlying PCRA claims in the instant matter, save one,1 are
allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel.
A PCRA petitioner is entitled to relief if he pleads and proves that prior
counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. 42 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 9543(a)(2)(ii). “To prevail on an [ineffectiveness] claim, a PCRA petitioner
must plead and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the
underlying legal claim has arguable merit; (2) counsel had no reasonable
basis for acting or failing to act; and (3) the petitioner suffered resulting
prejudice.” Commonwealth v. Reyes-Rodriguez, 111 A.3d 775, 780 (Pa.
Super. 2015) (en banc). A petitioner must adequately discuss and prove all
three factors of the ‘Pierce[2] test,’ or the claim fails. Id.
In the matter sub judice, Appellant raises a number of claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant claims that trial counsel was
ineffective for 1) failing to request discovery of 115 images, 2) failing to
adequately cross examine Omar O’Neal, Rodney King, Roland Carter,
Bayshine Jones, and Roger King regarding inconsistencies in their
____________________________________________
1
One of Appellant’s underlying claim is an alleged Brady violation; however,
Appellant fails to discuss this in his brief.
2
Commonwealth v. Pierce, 527 A.2d 973 (Pa. 1987).
-3-
J-S52022-16
statements, 3) failing to adequately cross-examine Detective Cahill, 4)
failing to file a motion to suppress the out of court identification of Appellant,
and 5) failing to pursue the issue of whether Jamal Simmons was the real
shooter. In his brief, Appellant fails to discuss whether trial counsel had a
reasonable basis for making any of these decisions or how these decisions
prejudiced Appellant; therefore, Appellant’s claims fail.
Even if Appellant had properly addressed his ineffectiveness claims, we
would find that the PCRA court’s opinion of November 4, 2015, properly
determined that each of Appellant’s claims did not have arguable merit
and/or did not result in prejudice to the Appellant. See PCRA Court Opinion,
11/4/15, at 9-20. We would therefore affirm the PCRA court on those bases.
We note in as much as the PCRA court discusses whether counsel had a
reasonable basis for acting or failing to act, we disagree that the PCRA court
could determine this part of the Pierce test because it did not conduct a
hearing to establish counsel’s basis for each of Appellant’s ineffectiveness
claims. See Reyes-Rodriguez, 111 A.3d at 783-84. Nonetheless, while an
appellant may need a hearing to explore the validity of counsel’s trial
strategy pursuant to this second prong, such a hearing will be rendered
superfluous if the court can determine from the record that there has been
no prejudice to the appellant, Jones, 942 A.2d at 907, or the claim lacks
arguable merit. Reyes-Rodriguez, 111 A.3d at 784.
We direct that a copy of the PCRA court’s November 4, 2015 opinion
be attached to any future filings in this case.
-4-
J-S52022-16
Order affirmed.
President Judge Emeritus Ford Elliott joins this memorandum.
Judge Strassburger concurs in the result.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/22/2016
-5-