J-S63036-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 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 Act1(“PCRA”) petition as untimely filed. She claims 

plea counsel was ineffective by advising her that her sentence would be 

concurrent with, 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 and 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) statement.

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 whether 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 date 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) (citations and footnote 

omitted).

After careful review of the record, Appellant’s brief,2and 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 be 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. The 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~S8-2010Com~~~:,!~~~~000488-14 LED 

Op,nion 

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 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 any 

period provided in this section and has been held by that court to apply 

retroactively. 

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 time limitation 

The present PCRA petition is governed by the amended PCRA because it was 
4 

BY THE COURT: 

PCRA should be affirmed. 

Accordingly, for the Reasons set forth above, the Order denying relief under the 

entertain any claims pursuant to the PCRA. 

of the three enumerated statutory exceptions, this Court was without jurisdiction to 

judgment of sentence became final and as Appellant has neither pleaded nor proven any 

As the instant petition was filed more that one year after the date on which the 

fallen far short of raising a viable timely claim pursuant to the PCRA. 

interference" as contemplated by the PCRA.) Accordingly, we believe that Appellant has 

restrictive housing unit which limited his library access does not invoke "governmental 

Conunomvealth v. Barrett, 761 A.2d. 145 (Pa. Superior 2000) (an inmate housed in a 

constitutional right. It does not amount to governmental interference. See 

Appellant at the sentencing hearing. It does not invoke any retroactively appl iecl 

exceptions. The claim could not be newly discovered as it allegedly was known to 

The law is clear that this claim does not invoke any of the three enumerated