J-A21038-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
RICHARD CARRINGTON WILLIAMS
Appellant No. 1806 WDA 2016
Appeal from the PCRA Order November 2, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County
Criminal Division at No: CP-26-CR-0001124-1992
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OLSON, and STABILE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 9, 2017
Appellant, Richard Carrington Williams, appeals pro se from the
November 2, 2016 order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette
County (“PCRA court”) dismissing his petition pursuant to the Post
Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-46, as untimely. Upon
review, we affirm.
The instant PCRA petition filed by Appellant is his third PCRA petition.
This Court affirmed the denial of Appellant’s first PCRA petition on
September 1, 1998, and our Supreme Court denied allocator on April 23,
1999. See Commonwealth v. Williams, 738 A.2d 457 (Pa. 1999);
Commonwealth v. Williams, 726 A.2d 1085 (Pa. Super. 1998). Appellant
filed the instant PCRA petition, his third, on September 15, 2016. The PCRA
court issued a Pa.R.Crim. P. 907 notice on October 6, 2016, and Appellant
J-A21038-17
filed a response on October 19, 2016. The PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s
petition on November 2, 2016. Appellant timely appealed and filed a
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement on December 11, 2016. The PCRA court issued
a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion on December 16, 2016. On October 2, 2017,
Appellant filed an application for relief in this Court.
Appellant raises four issues on appeal, which we repeat verbatim.
[I.] The trial court erred in arbitrarily dismissing the petition
for new trial based on after discovered evidence, and alibi,
where the court failed to perform a factual finding, and
resolve credibility issues of the evidence, evidence content,
etc. ?
[II.] The trial court erred in dismissing the motion for new trial
where the court failed to determine the layered ineffective
assistance in relation to counsels ineffectiveness in failing
to investigate or present alibi evidence and those grounds
stated in the motion for new trial after discovered evidence
and the PCRA petition. ?
[III.] The Appellant was denied an independent determination
regarding Appellant’s request for recusal, due to
misconduct or contamination issue’s also such
determination not being made by an independent judge of
the court?
[IV.] Appellant denied effective assistance of counsel on appeal.
Where the Superior Court in Appellant’s case stated the
following, “We hold this matter waived as not being fully
developed in the argument section of the brief.” The trial
court has not applied Penson v. Ohio, to it’ determination
in dismissing regarding ineffective assistance of counsel.
There being layered ineffective assistance of counsel, all
prior counsels failure to raise the issue. Layered
ineffective assistance establishes extraordinary
circumstances. ? (Counsels failure to seek change of
venue/having been denied jury of peers).
Appellant’s Brief at 3.
-2-
J-A21038-17
All PCRA petitions, “including a second or subsequent petition, shall be
filed within one year of the date the judgment becomes final” unless an
exception to timeliness applies. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). These
“restrictions are jurisdictional in nature. Thus, [i]f a PCRA petition is
untimely, neither this Court nor the [PCRA] court has jurisdiction over the
petition. Without jurisdiction, we simply do not have the legal authority to
address the substantive claims.” Commonwealth v. Chester, 895 A.2d
520, 522 (Pa. 2006) (first alteration in original) (internal citations and
quotation marks omitted). Further, “an appellate court reviews the PCRA
court’s findings of fact to determine whether they are supported by the
record, and reviews its conclusions of law to determine whether they are
free from legal error.” Commonwealth v. Spotz, 84 A.3d 294, 311 (Pa.
2014) (quoting Commonwealth v. Colavita, 993 A.2d 874, 887 (Pa.
2010)).
Three exceptions exist to the timeliness requirement of the PCRA.
These exceptions are
(i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the
result of interference by government officials with
the presentation of the claim in violation of the
Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the
Constitution or laws of the United States;
(ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were
unknown to the petitioner and could not have
been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence;
or
(iii) the right asserted is a constitutional right that
was recognized by the Supreme Court of the
United States or the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania after the time period provided in this
-3-
J-A21038-17
section and has been held by that court to apply
retroactively;
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i-iii).
Appellant asserts the newly discovered fact exception in his motion.
Specifically, that he informed trial counsel, prior to trial, that James Gibson
was an alibi witness. Appellant asserts that the PCRA court erred because it
failed to hold a hearing to determine if this after discovered evidence
satisfies the PCRA’s timeliness exception. The PCRA court properly noted
that this claim is patently untimely as Appellant raised this claim in his first
PCRA petition in 1997. See Order, 10/6/16, at 2. Thus, not only was
Appellant unable to meet the newly discovered fact exception, the issue is
waived because it had been previously litigated. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §
9544(a)(3). Therefore, the PCRA court was without jurisdiction to hear
Appellant’s petition and Appellant’s claims fail.
Order affirmed. Application for relief filed denied.1
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
____________________________________________
1
On October 2, 2017, Appellant filed a “request for information and for
permission to supplement already filed brief or petition for remand due to
recently decided case.” In light of our disposition, the application is denied.
-4-
J-A21038-17
Date: 11/9/2017
-5-
Com. v. Williams, R.
Combined Opinion