J-S14011-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

CHRIS ALLAN WILLIAMS 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1115 WDA 2021

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 5, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-63-CR-0001367-2019

BEFORE: McLAUGHLIN, J., McCAFFERY, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED: JULY 15, 2022

Chris Allan Williams appeals from the judgment of sentence entered 

following his convictions for simple assault, recklessly endangering another 

person, misdemeanor disorderly conduct, summary disorderly conduct, and 

summary harassment.1 Williams challenges the discretionary aspects of his 

sentence. We affirm.

The trial court summarized the facts of this case as follows:

The testimony at trial developed the following facts. At 

approximately 9:50 P.M. on March 23, 2019, [Williams], his 

wife, and a friend attended a movie at the Regal Crown 

Theater in North Franklin Township, Washington County, 

Pennsylvania. Anthony Ward, Lamar Wormsley, and four 

other boys also attended the same showing that evening. 

All of the boys were juveniles at the time of the incident. 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2701(a)(2), 2701(a)(1), 2705, 5503(a)(1), and 2709(a)(1), 

respectively.
J-S14011-22

- 2 -

During the film, [Williams] became irritated with the group 

of six boys, because he felt that the boys were being 

disruptive. During the movie, [Williams] shouted at the 

group of boys to “[s]hut the fuck up.” Following a reply from 

the group of boys, [Williams] left his seat and confronted 

the group. During the confrontation in the theater, 

[Williams] punched Lamar Wormsley, injuring his lip. 

Following this punch, a larger physical altercation ensued 

between [Williams] and the group of juveniles. Multiple

witnesses testified at trial that [Williams] instigated the 

confrontation. Following the altercation in the theater, the 

boys exited to the hallway, and [Williams] followed. In the 

hallway, [Williams] escalated the situation. He produced a 

pistol and fired a shot, injuring Anthony Ward’s knee in the 

process. Constable Thomas Duncan (working security for 

the theater) intervened and disarmed [Williams]. Anthony 

Ward required transportation to a hospital in Pittsburgh via 

Life Flight helicopter. Ward sustained serious injuries to his 

knee and required surgery. Doctors performed surgery to 

remove the bullet from Ward. Pennsylvania State Police 

accompanied [Williams] to a hospital but did not place him 

into custody. [Williams] turned himself and was arraigned, 

whereupon he was released on unsecured bail. The 

Commonwealth offered the testimony of two expert 

witnesses during trial. Jared Hiester, a forensic analyst from

the Pennsylvania State Police, testified as an expert in DNA 

analysis. Jared Hiester testified that [Williams] actually used 

the gun based on DNA evidence found on the gun's 

handgrip. Corporal Creighton Callas of the Pennsylvania 

State Police, an expert in firearms and toolmarks analysis, 

testified that it was unlikely that [William’s] gun discharged 

accidentally.

Trial Court Opinion, Oct. 28, 2021, at 4-5 (citations to record omitted).

A jury found Williams guilty of two counts of simple assault and one 

count each of REAP and disorderly conduct.2 The trial court found him guilty 

of the summary offenses of harassment and disorderly conduct. The trial court 

____________________________________________

2 The jury found Williams not guilty of aggravated assault and terroristic 

threats.
J-S14011-22

- 3 -

imposed the following sentences: four to 12 months for the first simple assault 

conviction; six to 18 months for the second simple assault conviction; nine to 

18 months for the REAP conviction; and five to 12 months for the disorderly 

conduct conviction. It imposed no further penalty for the summary offenses. 

The court ordered that the sentences run consecutive to each other, for an 

aggregate sentence of two to five years’ imprisonment. 

Williams filed a post-sentence motion, claiming the court failed to 

recognize mitigating factors and cited improper aggravating factors when 

imposing an excessive sentence; the court erred in using the weapon 

enhancement; the court did not consider the particular circumstances of the 

defendant; and the court erroneously applied aggravating circumstances. The 

court denied the motion. Williams filed a timely notice of appeal.

Williams raises the following issues:

1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by imposing a 

manifestly excessive sentence?

2. Did the trial court fail to place adequate reasons on the 

record for imposing such an excessive sentence?

3. Did the trial court far exceed the maximum range as 

provided in the Pennsylvania Sentencing Guidelines?

Williams’ Br. at 4 (suggested answers omitted).

Williams’ issues go to the discretionary aspects of his sentence, for 

which there is no automatic right to appellate review. Commonwealth v. 

Banks, 198 A.3d 391, 401 (Pa.Super. 2018). A defendant may obtain 

appellate review of discretionary aspects of sentence only if: (1) the appeal is 
J-S14011-22

- 4 -

timely; (2) the defendant preserved the issues below; (3) the defendant has 

included in the brief to this Court a Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) concise statement of 

reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal; and (4) the Rule 2119(f) 

statement raises a substantial question that the sentence is not appropriate 

under the Sentencing Code or is contrary to fundamental sentencing norms. 

Id.; Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f). See also Banks, 198 A.3d at 401. We make the 

substantial-question determination based solely on the contents of the Rule 

2119(f) statement. Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617, 621-22 (Pa. 

2002). Only if the appellant has raised a substantial question may we turn to 

the merits of the sentencing claims. See id.

In his Rule 2119(f) statement, Williams alleges the trial court improperly 

applied the sentencing matrixes. For the first simple assault conviction, 

Williams maintains the Sentencing Guidelines’ range was restorative sanctions

to one month incarceration, with the aggravated range adding an additional 

three months. He asserts the sentence of four to 12 months “exceeds the 

maximum penalty that is permitted and is therefore improper.” Williams’ Br. 

at 12. He makes similar claims for the remaining sentences, claiming each 

“exceeds the maximum penalty and is therefore improper.” Id. at 13. 

Williams’ Rule 2119(f) statement also challenges the imposition of consecutive 

sentences. He claims that the sentences for counts five and seven should have 

been concurrent “as they were charged for the same incident with Mr. 

Wormsley in the theater seats,” and sentences for counts four and six should 
J-S14011-22

- 5 -

have been concurrent “since they arose from the same incident with Mr. Ward 

in the hallway.” Id. at 14.

Although his appeal was timely, Williams did not preserve the claims he 

asserts in his Rule 2119(f) statement, either at his sentencing hearing or in 

his post-sentence motion. These claims are therefore waived. See 

Commonwealth v. Lamonda, 52 A.3d 365, 371 (Pa.Super. 2012) (en banc) 

(“Issues challenging the discretionary aspects of a sentence must be raised in 

a post-sentence motion or by presenting the claim to the trial court during the 

sentencing proceeding”) (citation omitted); Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues not 

raised in the trial court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on 

appeal”).

Furthermore, his challenge to imposition of consecutive sentences does 

not raise a substantial question. A sentencing court has discretion to run 

sentences consecutively, and “a bald claim of excessiveness due to the 

consecutive nature of a sentence will not raise a substantial question.” 

Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d. 1263, 1270 (Pa.Super. 2013). To raise 

a substantial question regarding consecutive, guidelines sentences, the 

appellant must articulate in the Rule 2119(f) statement that the sentence is 

clearly unreasonable and excessive on its face in light of the criminal conduct 

at issue in the case. Id. at 1269-70. Here, Williams’ bald challenge to the 

imposition of consecutive sentences does not raise a substantial question. 

Accordingly, because Williams failed to preserve his claims in the trial 

court and failed to raise a substantial question, we cannot review his claims. 
J-S14011-22

- 6 -

And even if Williams had cleared these hurdles, we still could not review the 

claims in the Rule 2119(f) statement. Williams waived the claims by failing to 

put them in the “Statement of Questions Involved” section of his brief.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/15/2022