J-S24001-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
VERNON WILLIAMS
Appellant No. 1223 WDA 2012
Appeal from the PCRA Order June 26, 2012
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No(s): 2003-04687
CP-02-CR-0017550-2002
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., STABILE, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED APRIL 20, 2017
On November 20, 2003, a jury found Appellant, Vernon Williams,
guilty on charges of first-degree murder and conspiracy. The trial court
sentenced him to a term of life imprisonment. He was 19 at the time of the
crime. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied his petition for allowance
of appeal on December 7, 2005. This appeal concerns the dismissal of
Williams’s second petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act
(“PCRA”), which he filed pro se on May 23, 2012.1 After careful review, we
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1
There was a lengthy delay in the processing of this appeal while the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit addressed Williams’s petition for
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S24001-17
agree with the PCRA court that Williams’s petition was time-barred and
therefore affirm.
A detailed recitation of the facts supporting Williams’s judgment of
sentence and a description of this case’s procedural history are unnecessary,
as he concedes the instant petition is subject to the PCRA’s time-bar. See
Appellant’s Brief, at 2. However, Williams contends that he qualifies for the
newly discovered facts exception to the time-bar. See § 9545(b)(1)(ii).
In his petition, Williams asserted that prior PCRA counsel had been
ineffective for failing to more strenuously object to an evidentiary ruling at a
hearing on his first PCRA petition. He claimed that his co-defendant, Curtis
Mahaffey, who had invoked his right against self-incrimination at their joint
trial, was willing to testify to Williams’s innocence at his PCRA hearing. The
PCRA court ruled that Mahaffey was not a newly discovered witness, and
therefore precluded the testimony.2
Williams now contends that PCRA counsel should have argued that
Mahaffey’s testimony was after-discovered evidence, as Mahaffey was
unavailable at trial. Williams’s allegation of ineffectiveness of PCRA counsel
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
federal habeas corpus relief. See Williams v. Folino, 625 Fed.Appx. 150
(3d Cir. 2015) (non-precedential).
2
The transcript from this PCRA hearing is not in the certified record before
us. It is an appellant’s responsibility to ensure that the certified record
contains all the items necessary to review his claim. See Commonwealth
v. Tucker, 143 A.3d 955, 963 (Pa. Super. 2016). We assume, without so
finding, that Williams correctly describes the proceeding, given that no relief
is due in any event.
-2-
J-S24001-17
at the hearing on his first PCRA petition does not qualify as an exception to
the PCRA’s time-bar. See Commonwealth v. Henkel, 90 A.3d 16, 29 (Pa.
Super. 2014) (en banc). The PCRA court thus correctly concluded that it did
not have jurisdiction to entertain Williams’s PCRA petition. See
Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 79 A.3d 649, 651 (Pa. Super. 2013).
Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/20/2017
-3-