J-S56008-20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

WILLIE JAMES 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1397 EDA 2019

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered April 11, 2019

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

No(s): CP-51-CR-0003924-2010

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., KUNSELMAN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED MARCH 16, 2021

Appellant, Willie James, appeals from the post-conviction court’s April 

11, 2019 order, dismissing as meritless his timely petition filed pursuant to 

the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm. 

We need not reiterate the procedural history and relevant facts of this 

case, as the PCRA court set forth a summary of both in its November 27, 2019 

opinion issued pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a). See PCRA Court Opinion (PCO), 

11/27/19, at 1-2. On appeal, Appellant raises three issues for our review:

I. Whether the PCRA court erred in denying Appellant’s PCRA 

petition without an evidentiary hearing on the issues raised in the 

amended PCRA petition regarding trial counsel’s ineffectiveness.

II. Whether the PCRA court erred in finding trial counsel was not 

ineffective for failing to file a post-sentence motion challenging 

the weight of the evidence.

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S56008-20

- 2 -

III. Whether the PCRA court erred in finding trial counsel was not 

ineffective for failing to file a post-sentence motion for 

reconsideration of sentence.

Appellant’s Brief at 8. 

With respect to Appellant’s first and second issues, we have reviewed 

the thorough and well-reasoned opinion issued by the Honorable Genece E. 

Brinkley of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. We conclude 

that Judge Brinkley’s opinion accurately and thoroughly disposes of the first 

and second issues raised by Appellant. See PCO at 2-5. Accordingly, we 

adopt her opinion as our own with respect to those issues. 

In Appellant’s third issue, he argues that the PCRA court erred in finding 

that his trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a post-sentence 

motion for reconsideration of sentence. We deem this claim waived on 

multiple grounds. Initially, Appellant does not indicate where he raised this 

issue below. See Pa.R.A.P. 2117(c) (requiring, where an issue is not 

reviewable on appeal unless raised or preserved below, a statement of place 

of raising or preservation of issues); Pa.R.A.P. 2119(e) (“Where under the 

applicable law an issue is not reviewable on appeal unless raised or preserved 

below, the argument must set forth, in immediate connection therewith or in 

a footnote thereto, either a specific cross-reference to the page or pages of 

the statement of the case which set forth the information relating thereto as 

required by Pa.R.A.P. 2117(c), or substantially the same information”). “Our 

appellate courts have long held that an [appellant] who does not follow

Pa.R.A.P. 2117(c) and Pa.R.A.P. 2119(e) waives the related issues due to the 
J-S56008-20

- 3 -

defects in his brief.” Young v. S.B. Conrad, Inc., 216 A.3d 267, 274 (Pa. 

Super. 2019). “[I]t is not the responsibility of this Court to scour the record 

to prove that an appellant has raised an issue before the [lower] court, thereby 

preserving it for appellate review.” Commonwealth v. Baker, 963 A.2d 495, 

502 n.6 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citations omitted). Moreover, though we are not 

required to scour the record, our own review of it shows that this issue was 

not raised in Appellant’s amended PCRA petition that was filed by his 

appointed counsel, and we also could not locate such a claim in Appellant’s 

pro se filings. See 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.”). 

Finally, Appellant’s argument in his brief pertaining to this issue is wholly 

deficient. His entire argument on this issue consists of the following:

Similar to a motion alleging the verdict is against the weight of 

the evidence, prejudice must be shown when trial counsel fails to 

file a motion for reconsideration of sentence. See[]

Commonwealth v. Reaves, 923 A.2d, 1119, 1129 (Pa. 2007). 

Chiefly, to prove prejudice, a petitioner must prove that[,] had 

[he or she] filed [a] post-sentence motion for reconsideration of 

sentence, it would have been granted. See Commonwealth v. 

Liston, 977[]A.2d 1089 (Pa. 2009). Counsel’s failure to file a 

motion to reconsider the sentence is ineffective assistance of 

counsel. A reasonable judge would have granted a 

reconsideration motion. There is no “reasonable basis” for counsel 

not to file a motion to reconsider ... Appellant’s sentence. 

Appellant was sentenced to mandatory life [imprisonment] 

without parole[,] and sentenced to [a] consecutive [term of] 10 

to 20 years[’ imprisonment] for the crime of robbery[,] and

[concurrent terms of 10-20 years’ imprisonment for conspiracy 

and 21⁄2-5] years[’ imprisonment] for possession of an instrument 

of a crime.

Further, there is no tactical drawback to counsel[’s] filing a motion 

for reconsideration of sentence, as long as the claim raised has 
J-S56008-20

- 4 -

merit. [] Appellant would have had nothing to lose had trial 

counsel filed a motion for reconsideration of sentence, which had 

merit in this instance.

Finally, Appellant suffered actual prejudice as a result of counsel’s 

failure to file a motion to reconsider [his] sentence. He could have 

been resentenced[,] and the Superior Court could not consider ... 

Appellant’s sentence on a direct appeal.

Appellant’s Brief at 16-17. 

In his argument, Appellant neglects to explain specifically how his 

sentence was improper, and why his sentencing claim would have had merit. 

As the Commonwealth discerns, Appellant provides an inadequate factual 

argument and insufficient legal support for his claim. See Commonwealth’s 

Brief at 8 n.3. We will not review such undeveloped issues. Coulter v. 

Ramsden, 94 A.3d 1080, 1088-89 (Pa. Super. 2014) (“The Rules of Appellate 

Procedure state unequivocally that each question an appellant raises is to be 

supported by discussion and analysis of pertinent authority. ... This Court will 

not act as counsel and will not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant.”). 

Therefore, based on the foregoing reasons, Appellant’s third issue is waived. 

No relief is due. 

Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/16/2021
J-S56008-20

- 5 -