J-S86023-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
MICHAEL BRUCE WILLIAMS
Appellant No. 468 WDA 2016
Appeal from the Order March 2, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-25-CR-0003349-2012
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., MOULTON, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY MOULTON, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 27, 2017
Michael Bruce Williams appeals from the March 2, 2016 order entered
by the Erie County Court of Common Pleas denying his petition filed
pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-
9546. We affirm.
The trial court previously summarized the factual history of this matter
as follows:
In the early morning hours of March 18, 2012, [Victim]
consumed alcohol at a house party and left seeking money
to buy crack cocaine. [Victim] walked to the Shell gas
station on East 6th Street, City of Erie, and saw [Williams]
standing outside. [Victim] approached [Williams],
propositioned him, and asked if he had money. [Williams]
replied “yeah” and she asked him to come into the alley
with her.
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S86023-16
They both entered the alley and [Victim] asked him for
the money. Once she realized that [Williams] had no
money, [Victim] tried to leave. [Williams] grabbed her
arm, began fondling her breasts and buttocks, and
attempted to remove her clothes. [Williams] hit [Victim]
and she tried unsuccessfully to fight him off with her
screwdriver. [Victim] attempted to dial 911 from her cell
phone, but [Williams] took it and put it in his pocket.
When she attempted to leave again, [Williams] punched
[Victim] in the face and slammed her to the ground.
[Williams] removed [Victim’s] pants and underwear. While
[Victim] was lying on her stomach, [Williams] began
“humping her from behind” with his penis in her vaginal
and anal areas. [Victim] could feel his penis on her
buttocks and the outer lips of her vaginal area. [Williams]
also placed a belt around [Victim’s] neck and struck her in
the eye with the belt buckle.
Over the course of several hours, [Victim] repeatedly
told him to stop and even told him she had AIDS.
[Williams] refused to stop until approximately 7:00 a.m.,
when Erie Police Department Officer Pete Dregalla arrived
at the scene. Dregalla entered the alley, heard [Victim]
yelling for him, and saw [Williams] on top of her with his
pants down. [Williams] stood up and pulled up his pants,
while [Victim] was screaming. [Victim] was visibly upset
and Dregalla noticed that she had a swollen, black eye and
minor scrapes. He also saw clothes, a belt, screwdriver,
and [Victim’s] wig on the ground.
After [Williams] was arrested and transported to the
police station, police recovered [Victim’s] cellular phone
from [Williams] during the booking process.
[Victim] was transported to the hospital and Jill Little, a
sexual assault nurse examiner, performed a forensic
examination. Before the internal examination, [Victim]
indicated to her that there was vaginal penetration and
[Williams] attempted anal penetration. Little observed
that [Victim], who was visibly upset, had a swollen/bruised
eye and dirt in her hair and on her body. [Victim]
complained of tightness in her neck from the belt and
abdominal pain where she was kicked by [Williams].
[Victim] also complained of pain around her hymen.
-2-
J-S86023-16
During the examination, Little observed an abrasion
near [Victim’s] clitoral hood and swelling to her hymen.
[Victim] complained of pain when Little tried to insert a
speculum and, therefore, she stopped the internal
examination.
On September 26, 2012, Erie Police Department James
Spagel took videotaped statements from [Williams] and
[Victim].
On January 17, 2014, following a two-day jury trial,
[Williams] was found guilty of [rape – forcible compulsion,
aggravated assault, recklessly endangering another
person, and possessing instruments of crime1]. [The trial
court] subsequently ordered a sexual violent predator
(SVP) assessment pursuant to Pennsylvania’s version of
“Megan’s Law,[”] the Sexual Offender Registration and
Notification Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9799.10, et. seq.
(“SORNA"). By letter dated April 14, [2014], the Sexual
Offenders Assessment Board determined that [Williams]
did not meet the criteria of a sexually violent predator.
On April 28, 2014, [Williams] was sentenced to the
following: 6 to 20 years’ imprisonment for Count 1 (rape);
1 ½ to 5 years’ imprisonment for Count 2 (aggravated
assault), consecutive to Count 1; 6 to 24 months’
imprisonment for Count 3 (recklessly endangering another
person), concurrent to Count 1; and, 9 to 60 months’
imprisonment for Count 4 (possessing instruments of a
crime), concurrent to Count 1. [Williams] did not file a
post-sentence motion.
Trial Court Op., 7/21/14, at 1-3 (internal citations omitted).
Williams timely appealed, and on March 11, 2015, this Court affirmed
Williams’ judgment of sentence. On December 2, 2015, Williams filed the
instant PCRA petition. On December 7, 2015, the trial court appointed PCRA
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3121(a)(1), 2702(a)(4), 2705, and 907(a),
respectively.
-3-
J-S86023-16
counsel. On January 6, 2016, Williams filed a counseled supplement to his
PCRA petition. On February 4, 2016, the PCRA court sent notice of its intent
to dismiss Williams’ petition without a hearing pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule
of Criminal Procedure 907. Williams did not respond to the notice. On
March 2, 2016, the PCRA court dismissed Williams’ petition. On April 1,
2016, Williams filed a timely notice of appeal.
Williams raises the following issue on appeal:
Whether [Williams] was afforded ineffective assistance of
counsel given the joint omissions of trial counsel and
appellate counsel to assert and preserve a claim
challenging the sufficiency of the evidence as to the rape
conviction and the weight of the evidence as to all
convictions.
Williams’ Br. at 3.
Our standard of review from the denial of PCRA relief “is limited to
examining whether the PCRA 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, 1242 (Pa.Super. 2011).
When analyzing ineffectiveness claims, “[w]e begin . . . with the
presumption that counsel [was] effective.” Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18
A.3d 244, 259-60 (Pa. 2011). “[T]he defendant bears the burden of proving
ineffectiveness.” Commonwealth v. Ligons, 971 A.2d 1125, 1137 (Pa.
2009). To overcome the presumption of effectiveness, a PCRA petitioner
must demonstrate that: “(1) the underlying substantive claim has arguable
merit; (2) counsel whose effectiveness is being challenged did not have a
-4-
J-S86023-16
reasonable basis for his or her actions or failure to act; and (3) the petitioner
suffered prejudice as a result of counsel’s deficient performance.” Id. “A
claim of ineffectiveness will be denied if the petitioner’s evidence fails to
meet any of these prongs.” Id.
Williams claims that counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the
sufficiency of the evidence as to his rape conviction and for failing to
challenge the weight of the evidence as to all of his convictions. He
contends that the victim “could not state whether there was penetration.”
Williams’ Br. at 6. Thus, he argues, there was insufficient evidence to
sustain his rape conviction because “there was no direct testimonial or
physical evidence that penetration[,] however slight[,] had been
perpetrated.” Id.
The PCRA court found that any challenge to the sufficiency of the
evidence would have been unsuccessful and, therefore, Williams suffered no
prejudice. The PCRA court reasoned:
Here, the evidence adduced at trial reflects that
[Williams], without the victim’s consent, “humped her from
behind” with his penis in her vaginal and anal areas.
During the prolonged assault, [Williams] punched the
victim in the face, slammed her to the ground, and kicked
her in the stomach. [Williams] also struck the victim in
the eye with a belt buckle and wrapped the belt around her
neck to restrain her. After the assault, the victim told the
sexual assault nurse examiner that there was vaginal
penetration and [Williams] attempted anal penetration.
The nurse examiner observed an abrasion near the victim's
clitoral hood and swelling to her hymen. Based on this
evidence, any challenge to the sufficiency or weight of the
-5-
J-S86023-16
evidence would have been unsuccessful and, therefore,
[Williams] suffered no prejudice. See[] Commonwealth
v. Sneed, 899 A.2d 1067, 1084 (Pa. 2006)[](holding that
to demonstrate prejudice, petitioner must show there is a
reasonable probability but for counsel's error or omission,
the result of the proceeding would have been different).
Rule 907 Not. at 4 (“Notice of Intent to Dismiss”) (internal citations
omitted). We conclude that the PCRA court’s determination is supported by
the record and is free from legal error.
Next, Williams claims that trial and appellate counsel were ineffective
for failing to assert that the verdicts were against the weight of the
evidence. Because Williams has not adequately developed this claim in the
argument section of his brief, we conclude that he has waived it. See
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 985 A.2d 915, 924 (Pa. 2009) (“[W]here an
appellate brief fails to provide any discussion of a claim with citation to
relevant authority or fails to develop the issue in any other meaningful
fashion capable of review, that claim is waived.”).2
Accordingly, the PCRA court properly denied Williams’ PCRA petition.
Order affirmed.
____________________________________________
2
Even if Williams had not waived this claim, it would fail. The PCRA
court concluded that any challenge to the weight of the evidence would have
been unsuccessful and, thus, Williams suffered no prejudice. Rule 907 Not.
at 4. The PCRA court’s conclusion is supported by the record and is free
from legal error.
-6-
J-S86023-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/27/2017
-7-