### J

- S63036

- 16

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENN SYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. SYNGUILA WILLIAMS Appellant No. 2201 EDA 2015

Appeal from the PCRA Order July 17, 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division

at No(s): CP

- 51

- CR

- 0000488

- 2010 BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. , SHOGAN, J. , and FITZGERALD, * 

### J. JUDGMENT ORDER BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 Appellant, Synguila Williams, appeals from the order dismissing her Post Conviction Relief Act 1 

### (“PCRA”) petition as untimely filed. She claims plea counsel was ineffective by advising her that her sentence would be
concurrent wi th, and not consecutive to, her federal sentence. We affirm. We adopt the facts and procedural history as set forth in the PCRA court’s opinion. See PCRA Ct. Op., 2/25/16, at 1

- 2. The court sentenced Appellant on October 3, 2011, and she did not file a direct appeal. Her sentence became final on November 2, 2011. The court docketed Appellant’s first pro se PCRA petition on November 21, 2012. Counsel was appointed and he filed an amended petition claiming Appellant’s pro se

* 

### Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 

### 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541

- 9546.

### J

- S63036

- 16

- 2

-

petition was timely filed an d that her guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligently made. Following a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice, the court dismissed Appellant’s petition on July 17, 2015. Appellant timely appealed and timely filed a court

- ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statem ent. Before addressing the merits of Appellant’s claims, we examine whether we have jurisdiction. See Commonwealth v. Fahy , 737 A.2d 214, 223 (Pa. 1999). “Our standard of review of a PCRA court’s dismissal of a PCRA petition is limited to examining wheth er the PCRA court’s determination is supported by the evidence of record and free of legal error.” Commonwealth v. Wilson , 824 A.2d 331, 333 (Pa. Super. 2003) ( en banc ) (citation omitted). A PCRA petition “must normally be filed within one year of the da te the judgment becomes final . . . unless one of the exceptions in § 9545(b)(1)(i)

- (iii) applies and the petition is filed within 60 days of the date the claim could have been presented.” Commonwealth v. Copenhefer , 941 A.2d 646, 648 (Pa. 2007) (citation s and footnote omitted). After careful review of the record, Appellant’s brief, 2 

### and the decision by the PCRA court, we affirm on the basis of the PCRA court’s reasoning. See PCRA Ct. Op. at 2

- 4 (holding (1) Appellant failed to plead and prove any one of the three timeliness exceptions to the one

- year time bar; and (2) on

2 

### The Commonwealth did not file a brief.

### J

- S63036

- 16

- 3

-

the merits, counsel explained to Appellant at the sentencing hearing that her sentence would be consecutive to her federal sentence). Having discerned no error, we affirm the order below

. Order affirmed. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 9/27/2016

### J

- S63036

- 16

- 4

-I Although the charges to which Appellant entered her plea and the five to ten year aggregate sentence were

negotiated between the parties, the issue of whether the sentence was to b e consecutive or concurrent to her federal sentence was left to the Court's discretion. recited by the prosecutor at the plea hearing indicated that Appellant set up the process 29 , 2007, murder and robbery of Claude Stewart Jones in Philadelphia. Th e facts as Commonwealth withdrew the murder charge. The charges stemmed from the December time, the lead charge against Appellant was Murder. In return for the negotiated plea, the The plea was taken only after a jury was chosen and trial was to begin. At that (8'h) year federal sentence she then was serving for bank robbery. deemed to run concurrently with each other but consecutively I to the eight and a half Robbery and Conspiracy and one (1) to two (2) years for PIC. All sentences were Specifically, Appellant received separate sentences of five (5) to ten (10) years for Crime (PIC) and was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of five (5) to ten (10) years. Court to the charges of Robbery, Criminal Conspiracy and Possessing an Instrument of On October 3, 2011, Appellant entered into a negotiated guilty plea before this set forth below, this Court's Order denying relief should be affirmed. to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa. C.S.A. §9541 

### et seq. For the reasons Appellant, Synguila Williams , appeals from this Court's denial of relief pursuant

OPINION OF THE COURT 

## FEB 2 

## (2016 Criminal Appeals 

## Unit First Judicial

District 

## of PA 

# 111111111111111 

# I Ill Ill Ill 7411266511 SYNGUILA WILLIAMS, Appellant



### v. COMMONWEAL TH OF PENNSYLV 

# A~:.~CR~S8-
2010 

# Com~~~: , !~~~~000488-14 LED

Op ,ni on CRIMINAL TRIAL DIVISION IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY Circulated 09/02/2016 01:05 PM

### 2 2 Counsel initially used the word consecutive. Appellant asked, "What that mean? Added on?" Counsel said "Afterwords, yes." The instant appeal followed. with her then federal sentence. After review, this Court denied the Petition as untimely. of the record because prior counsel assured her that the sentence would run concurrent essence current counsel alleges Appellant's plea was involuntary in direct contradiction Current counsel was appointed who filed an amended Petition on September 18, 2014. In to her federal sentence. On December 12, Appellant, filed a 

### pro se PCRA Petition. final, Appellant filed a 

### pro se motion seeking to have the instant sentence nm concurrent On November 21, 2012 , more than one year after Appellant's conviction became was represented by Lee Mandell, Esq. No other post sentence motions were filed. No appellate relief was sought. Appellant No petition to withdraw the plea or otherwise challenge the sentence was filed. objection to this "consecutive" aspect of the sentence. sentence. N.T. 10/3/11, 54. Significantly, voiced neither surprise, concern, nor an nm "after?" the federal sentence Appellant acknowledged that she understood the 10/3/11, 21. After being sentenced and after counsel explained that the sentence was to Appellant also acknowledged that she was satisfied with the advice of counsel. N.T. without any force, threats or promises beyond the negotiations. N.T. 10/3/11, 11, 19. During the guilty plea colloquy Appellant acknowledged that the plea was made in the proceeds of the robbery. See N.T. 10/3111, 24-32. Appellant accepted prior to entering the plea also noted that Appellant was to have shared defendants, shot and killed the victim. The facts recited by the Prosecutor, which which led to her co-defendants robbing the victim. During the robbery, one of her co-

### 3

to state statutes, rules, and forms. "dazed and confused" state. She then was transferred to a federal prison without access sentencing she was transferred to a state facility. She was sedated and remained in a In an attempt to avoid the bar of waiver Appellant claims that following been presented." provided in paragraph (l) 

### shall be filed within 60 days of the date the claim could have Moreover, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §9545(b) (2) states, "Any 

### petition invoking an exception (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 of the Constitution or laws of the United States; (ii) the facts upon which the claim i s predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence; or (iii) the ri g ht 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 any period provided in this section and has been held by that court to apply retroa c tively. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b) (I) (i)-(iii) (2006); Commonwealth v. Yarris, 731 A.2d 581, 587 (Pa. 1999). See also Commonwealth v. Whitney, 817 A.2d 473, 477 (Pa. 2003); Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214, 218 (Pa. 1999). 

### limited circumstances: year of the date on which the judgment of sentence becomes "final," except three very 2002)). Under 42 Pa.C.S.A. §9545(b) (l) 

### all PCRA petitions, must be filed within one (Pa Super. 2003) (quoting Commonwealth v. Palmer, 814 A.2d 700, 704-705 (Pa. Super. exceptions to the time bar applies. " Commonwealth v. Gallman , 838 A.2d 768, 774-775 jurisdiction to grant PCRA relief unless the petitioner can plead and prove that one of the requirements of 42 Pa.C.S.A. §9545 (b) "are jurisdictional in nature, and the courts lack restrictions. Commonwealth v. Beasley, 74 l A.2d 1258 , 1260 (Pa 1999). The timeliness filed after the effective 1996 date. The amended PCRA included t i me limitation The present PCRA petition is governed by the amended PCRA because it was

### 4 B Y THE C OURT :

P CRA s h o ul d b e affir m e d

. Acco r d in g l y , fo r t h e Rea s o n s set fort h a bov e , t h e Ord e r d e n y in g r e li e f und e r th e e n t e rta in a n y claim s p ur s ua n t t o th e P C RA

. o f th e th ree e num e r ate d s tat ut o r y exc e p ti o n s, t hi s C our t wa s w i t h o u t jur i s d icti o n to judg m e n t of s e nt e n ce be ca m e fina l a nd a s A p p e ll a nt has n e i t h e r p l ead e d n o r p rove n a ny A s th e i n s tan t p et i t i o n was fi l e d m o re th at o n e ye a r a f t er t h e da t e on whic h t h e fa ll e n fa r s h or t of rai s i n g a v iab l e ti m e l y cla i m purs u ant to the P CR A. i nt e r f e r e n ce " a s co n te mp late d b y th e PC R A. ) A cc or ding l y , we be li eve tha t A pp e ll a nt h as res t r i ct i ve hou s in g u n it whi c h limit e d hi s libra ry ac c e s s d oes n o t inv ok e "gove rnm enta l Con u nom ve al t h 

### v . Ba rr ett, 761 A.2 d. 14 5 (Pa. S up e rior 20 00 ) (a n i nm at e hou s e d i n a See It do e s n o t a mo unt to g ov ern men ta l inter fe r e n ce. c on s ti tuti o n a l ri g h t. App e llant at th e s e nten ci ng h e arin g. It do es n ot inv o k e a n y r et roa ctive l y ap pl ie cl e x cep tio ns . T he cl ai m co uld n o t b e n e wl y di s cov e r e d as 

### it a lle g e d ly wa s kno w n t o Th e law is c l e ar that t hi s cl a im do es n o t invok e a n y of th e thr e e e num e ra te d