Com. v. Williams, J. (judgment order)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S23029-17 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JACK WILLIAMS Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 2901 EDA 2016 Appeal from the PCRA Order Dated August 9, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0503781-1997 BEFORE: OLSON, J., SOLANO, J., and MUSMANNO, J. JUDGMENT ORDER BY SOLANO, J.: FILED JULY 14, 2017 Appellant Jack Williams appeals from the order dismissing his petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546, as untimely. We affirm. The facts leading to Appellant’s conviction are not relevant to our disposition.1 Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder2 following a jury 1 In brief, on July 13, 1996, Appellant shot Paul Jones several times and killed him as Jones was sitting in the driver seat of his car. Appellant, who was standing outside of the car and arguing with Jones, was angry; Jones’ selling of a stolen car to Appellant had caused Appellant to be arrested for auto theft two weeks earlier. See PCRA Ct. Op., 11/10/16, at 2-3. 2 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(a). J-S23029-17 trial in May of 1998, and was thereafter sentenced to life imprisonment. 3 Appellant received no relief following his direct appeal or his first or second PCRA petitions. See PCRA Ct. Op. at 1-2. The instant petition, Appellant’s third, was filed pro se on August 20, 2012. The PCRA court issued a noticed of its intention to dismiss the petition on June 1, 2016, and Appellant responded on June 17, 2016. The PCRA court dismissed his petition on August 9, 2016. Appellant thereafter filed this timely appeal. See PCRA Ct. Op. at 2. Appellant presents a single issue for our review, which is, “Did [Appellant file] his third PCRA petition timely under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii)[ & ](2) within sixty days?” Appellant’s Brief at 3. “[I]n reviewing the propriety of an order granting or denying PCRA relief, this Court is limited to ascertaining whether the evidence supports the determination of the PCRA court and whether the ruling is free of legal error.” Commonwealth v. Andrews, ___ A.3d ___, 2017 WL 1290747 at * 3 (Pa. Super., Apr. 7, 2017) (citation omitted). After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Leon W. Tucker, we conclude that the PCRA court properly denied relief on the basis 3 Appellant was also convicted of possession of an instrument of crime, 18 Pa.C.S. § 907, and carrying a firearm on public streets in Philadelphia, 18 Pa.C.S. § 6108, for which he received lesser sentences. -2- J-S23029-17 of the petition’s untimeliness. See PCRA Ct. Op. at 3-5 (finding that the timeliness of a PCRA petition is a jurisdictional prerequisite; Appellant’s petition was facially untimely as it was not filed within a year of when his judgment of sentence became final, see 42. Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1); Appellant claimed an exception to the one-year time-bar under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii), which allows for the filing of otherwise late petitions where the petitioner asserts a constitutional right that has been newly recognized by either the Supreme Court of the United States or the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and has been held by that court to apply retroactively; Appellant based his exception on Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012)4; and the Miller decision does not apply to Appellant because he was not under the age of eighteen when he committed the crime for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment5). Thus, we affirm on the basis of the PCRA court’s opinion, and we instruct the parties to attach a copy of the PCRA court’s opinion of November 10, 2016, to any future filing that references this Court’s decision. 4 Miller held unconstitutional mandatory sentences of life without parole for juveniles who were under the age of eighteen when they committed the offense for which they were sentenced. Miller, 132 S.Ct. at 2460. Montgomery v. Lousiana, 136 S.Ct. 718, 736 (2016), held that the rule announced in Miller has retroactive effect in cases on collateral review. 5 While the record does not appear to state Appellant’s date of birth, Appellant has admitted that he was eighteen years of age at the time he committed the murder. See Appellant’s Brief at 6. Information in the public trial court docket shows that Appellant was almost 18 years 5 months old at the time of the murder. -3- J-S23029-17 Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 7/14/2017 -4- 0011_Memorandum_Opinion Circulated 06/26/2017 03:37 PM
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
