Opinion
J-S60013-18 No. 121 MDA 2018
10-10-2018
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DEMETRIUS LAWRENCE WILLIAMS Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order December 13, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-41-CR-0000681-2014 BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., NICHOLS, J., and STRASSBURGER, J. MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Demetrius Lawrence Williams, appeals pro se from the order denying his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
The PCRA court summarized the procedural history of this matter as follows:
On October 30, 2014, [Appellant] was convicted after a jury trial of the offenses of Statutory Sexual Assault1, a felony of the second degree; Aggravated Indecent Assault2 (without consent), a felony of the second degree; Aggravated Indecent Assault3 (person under the age of 16 and [Appellant] being four or more years older), a felony of the second degree; Indecent Assault4 (without consent), a misdemeanor of the second degree; Indecent Assault5 (person under the age of 16 and [Appellant] being fo[u]r or more years older), a misdemeanor of the second degree; Intimidation of Witness or Victim6, a felony of the second degree; and Sexual Assault7 a felony of the second degree. On April 9, 2015, [Appellant] was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of seven and one half (7½) to sixteen (16) years to be served in a state correctional facility. [Appellant] filed timely post sentence
motions which were denied by this [c]ourt on August 14, 2015. [Appellant] filed a timely appeal to the Superior Court. By an opinion and order the Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence in the memorandum opinion filed on April 26, 2016. No further appeals were taken. Therefore, [Appellant's judgment of] sentence became final on May 26, 2016.
PCRA Court Opinion, 10/19/17, at 1-2.1 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 3122.1(a).
2 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 3125(a)(1).
3 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 3125(a)(8).
4 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 3126(a)(1).
5 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 3126(a)(8).
6 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 4953(a).
7 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 3124.1.
Commonwealth v. Williams , 145 A.3d 794, 1492 MDA 2015 (Pa. Super. filed April 26, 2016) (unpublished memorandum).
On December 9, 2016, Appellant filed a timely pro se PCRA petition. The PCRA court appointed Attorney Julian Allatt to represent Appellant. On March 5, 2017, Attorney Allatt filed a petition to withdraw and a no-merit letter pursuant to Commonwealth v. Turner , 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) and Commonwealth v. Finley , 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc) (explaining the procedure for counsel seeking to withdraw from representation in collateral proceedings). After an independent review of the record, the PCRA court agreed with counsel that there were no meritorious issues, and on October 19, 2017, the PCRA court granted counsel's motion to withdraw. The PCRA court notified Appellant of its intent to dismiss Appellant's PCRA petition pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907, and it provided Appellant twenty days in which to respond. On November 6, 2017, Appellant filed a timely response to the PCRA court's Rule 907 notice. On December 13, 2017, the PCRA court dismissed Appellant's PCRA petition, and Appellant filed a timely appeal. On January 29, 2018, the PCRA court directed Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) within thirty days.
In Appellant's Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, he listed the following issues, verbatim:
5. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN GRANTING ATTORNEY ALLATT'S PETITION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL WHEN PETITIONER'S CLAIMS HAVE MERIT AND ARE VIABLE ON APPEALAppellant's Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement, 2/22/18, at ¶¶ 5-6.
6. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN FAILING/NEGLECTING TO ORDER AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO EXPAND THE RECORD AND FURTHER HEAR THE MERITS OF PETITIONER'S ISSUES.
In Appellant's brief on appeal, he presents a single issue in his statement of questions involved:
WHETHER THE PENNSYLVANIA COURTS OF COMMON PLEAS ERRORED IN THE DEFENDANT'S PCRA PETITION BY DISMISSING PETITION AS A MERITLESS CLAIMAppellant's Brief at unnumbered 6 (verbatim).
However, in the argument portion of his pro se brief, Appellant attempts to assert the following issues:
1. WHETHER TRIAL COUNSEL WAS CONSTITIONALLY INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING/NEGLECTING TO CALL A MEDIACAL EXPERT FOR A EXPERT TESTIMONY
2. WHETHER TRIAL COUNSEL WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING/NEGLECTING TO OBJECT TO OMISSION OF ALIBI INSTRUCTION.Appellant's Brief at unnumbered 15, 16, 17, and 18, respectively (verbatim).
3. WHETHER TRIAL COUNSEL WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING/NEGLECTING TO MAKE AN CLOSING ARGUMENT TO THE JURY
4. WHETHER THE TRIAL COUNSEL WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY INEFFEACTIVE FOR FAILING/NEGLECTING TO OBJECT TO IMPROPER AUTHENTICATED TEXT MESSAGES; OR NOT CHALLENGING THE DENIAL OF KNOWLEGDE FROM S.S. CONSERNING THE TEXT MESSAGES
As evidenced above, the issues in the argument portion of Appellant's brief were not raised or even suggested in Appellant's boilerplate Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. "Although the courts may liberally construe materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit upon a litigant, and a court cannot be expected to become a litigant's counsel or find more in a written pro se submission than is fairly conveyed in the pleading." Commonwealth v. Blakeney , 108 A.3d 739, 766 (Pa. 2014). Accordingly, we are constrained to conclude that Appellant has waived the issues presented on appeal due to his failure to raise them before the PCRA court in his vague Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. See Commonwealth v. Castillo , 888 A.2d 775, 780 (Pa. 2005) (providing that, as a general rule, any issues not raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived); see also Commonwealth v. Hansley , 24 A.3d 410, 415 (Pa. Super. 2011) (finding waiver where an appellant's Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement was too vague to allow the court to identify the issues raised). Therefore, we affirm the order denying Appellant's PCRA petition.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 10/10/2018