J-S20018-16 

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA 

 Appellee 

v. 

DAMONTAE ANTHONY WILLIAMS, 

 Appellant No. 857 WDA 2015 

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of April 28, 2015 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-04-CR-0001398-2012 

BEFORE: PANELLA, OLSON and PLATT,* JJ. 

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED MARCH 11, 2016 

 Appellant, Damontae Anthony Williams, appeals from the judgment of 

sentence entered on April 28, 2015. We affirm. 

 This Court previously set forth the factual background of this case as 

follows: 

On July 25, 2012, at approximately 5:00 [p.m.], Appellant was 

transported in a silver Plymouth Neon automobile by Odell Littles 

(Littles) . . . to the Cricket Wireless Store located in the Walmart 

Plaza Shopping Center on Route 18 in Center Township, Beaver 

County, for the intended purpose of making payment of 

Appellant’s [cellular] telephone bill. Upon arrival, Appellant 

exited the vehicle while Littles remained in the car. Appellant 

entered the Cricket Wireless Store and conversed with the 

salesperson, Daniel Clear (Clear), regarding accessories for his 

cellular telephone. 

After choosing the desired accessories and preparing to pay for 

the items at the cash register, Appellant displayed a black semiautomatic handgun pointed within six to twelve inches of Clear’s 

chest and demanded money from the cash register. Clear 
J-S20018-16 

- 2 - 

complied by placing what was later determined to be $1,163.00 

into a green plastic bag, together with the merchandise that 

Appellant had chosen. Appellant then departed the store. . . . 

After entering the vehicle, much to the surprise of Littles, 

Appellant informed Littles that he had robbed the store. Upon 

learning of Appellant’s actions, Littles drove the vehicle into 

Monaca Borough, proceeding on Pennsylvania Avenue, the main 

thoroughfare. Officer Alan Shaffer of the Monaca Police 

Department . . . . entered his police vehicle and pulled out of the 

station parking lot on to Pennsylvania Avenue heading in the 

direction of the Center Township Walmart Plaza for the purpose 

of rendering assistance, when he observed the silver Neon 

approaching on Pennsylvania Avenue from the opposite 

direction. He entered a parking lot, reversed his direction, 

activated his emergency lights[,] and began pursuit of the Neon 

automobile. Littles observed Officer Shaffer’s police vehicle and 

informed Appellant that the police were following behind their 

car. Upon reaching the traffic signal at the intersection of 

Pennsylvania Avenue and 14th Street, the Neon vehicle stopped 

for the red traffic signal. 

Appellant exited the front passenger side door and ran into the 

parking lot of CoGo’s Convenience Store located at the 

intersection. Officer Shaffer, while still in his vehicle, followed 

Appellant into the parking lot and inadvertently struck Appellant 

with the police vehicle in the leg, causing him to fall. Appellant 

immediately got up and continued to run from Officer Shaffer, 

who was in full uniform and in a marked police vehicle. Officer 

Shaffer pursued Appellant on foot into the alley behind CoGo’s, 

when Appellant turned, removed from his waist a handgun[,] 

and fired three shots at Officer Shaffer, striking him with the first 

shot in the inner thigh of his right leg. Officer Shaffer drew his 

weapon and returned fire as Appellant hid behind several 

vehicles parked in the alley. As Officer Shaffer continued his 

approach toward the vehicles, Appellant threw out his weapon, 

laid face down on the ground[,] and surrendered. Officer Rachel 

Dietz, the on-duty partner of Officer Shaffer, took Appellant into 

custody. . . . 

Officer Dietz inquired of Appellant as to whether he possessed 

any other weapons and Appellant replied that a loaded weapon 

was located in his right shorts pocket. Appellant further stated 

that if his hands were free, he would shoot the officers in the 
J-S20018-16 

- 3 - 

face. Upon arrival of other officers, the weapon in Appellant’s 

pocket was removed together with a cigarette pack in which a 

baggie, containing 40 packages of cocaine weighing 4.4 grams, 

was found. The weapon with which Appellant fired upon Officer 

Shaffer was determined to be a .40 caliber semiautomatic 

weapon that had been stolen on July 12, 2012. The firearm 

located in his pocket was a .32 caliber fully loaded revolver. 

[Appellant] was not licensed to carry a firearm. 

Commonwealth v. Williams, 97 A.3d 793 (table), 2014 WL 10982082, at 

*1 (Pa. Super. 2014) (unpublished memorandum) (internal alterations and 

citation omitted; paragraph breaks added). 

 The relevant procedural history of this case is as follows. On March 

13, 2013, a jury found Appellant guilty of attempted murder,1 two counts of 

aggravated assault,2 assault of a law enforcement officer,3 robbery,4 two 

counts of receiving stolen property,5 possession of a firearm by a prohibited 

person,6 carrying a firearm without a license,7 theft by unlawful taking,8

 

1

 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 901, 2502. 

2

 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2702(a)(1), 2702(a)(3). 

 

3

 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702.1(a). 

4

 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(a)(1)(ii). 

5

 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3925(a). 

6

 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105(a)(1). 

7

 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6106(a)(1). 

8

 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3921(a). 
J-S20018-16 

- 4 - 

simple assault,9 recklessly endangering another person,10 possession with 

intent to deliver a controlled substance,11 and possession of a controlled 

substance.12 

 Prior to sentencing, the Commonwealth filed notice of its intent to seek 

a mandatory minimum sentence of five years’ imprisonment for possession 

with intent to deliver a controlled substance. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9712.1, 

held unconstitutional, Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. 

2014) (en banc), appeal denied, 121 A.3d 496 (Pa. 2015). The 

Commonwealth also filed notice of its intent to seek a mandatory minimum 

sentence of five years’ imprisonment for robbery while in possession of a 

firearm. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9712, held unconstitutional, Commonwealth 

v. Valentine, 101 A.3d 801 (Pa. Super. 2014), appeal denied, 124 A.3d 309 

(Pa. 2015). On June 3, 2013, Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate 

term of 40 to 80 years’ imprisonment. The aggregate sentence included 

mandatory minimum sentences of five to ten years’ imprisonment for 

possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance and five to ten years’ 

imprisonment for robbery while in possession of a firearm. Appellant filed a 

 

9

 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2701(a)(1). 

10 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2705. 

11 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30). 

12 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16). 
J-S20018-16 

- 5 - 

direct appeal and this Court affirmed. Commonwealth v. Williams, 97 

A.3d 793 (Pa. Super. 2014) (unpublished memorandum). 

 On October 2, 2014, Appellant filed a pro se petition pursuant to the 

Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. Counsel was 

appointed and counsel filed an amended petition. The amended petition 

alleged that Appellant’s direct appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to 

object to the mandatory minimum sentences as violating the right to a jury 

trial as interpreted by Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013). 

The Commonwealth conceded that Appellant was entitled to relief. On April 

28, 2015, the PCRA court granted Appellant’s petition and granted a new 

sentencing hearing as to the robbery and possession with intent to deliver a 

controlled substance counts. 

 The trial court then resentenced Appellant to four to eight years’ 

imprisonment for robbery and two to four years’ imprisonment for 

possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance. With the revised 

sentences, Appellant’s aggregate sentence was 36 to 72 years’ 

imprisonment. Appellant did not object to the sentence at the 

PCRA/sentencing hearing on April 28, 2015 nor did he file a post-sentence 

motion. This timely appeal followed.13

 

13 On May 28, 2015, the trial court ordered Appellant to file a concise 

statement of errors complained of on appeal (“concise statement”). See

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a). On June 18, 2015, Appellant filed his concise statement. 

(Footnote Continued Next Page) 
J-S20018-16 

- 6 - 

 Appellant presents one issue for our review: 

[Did t]he [t]rial [c]ourt abuse[] its discretion . . . by directing 

that certain parts of [Appellant’s] sentence [] be served 

consecutively[?] 

Appellant’s Brief at 6. 

In his lone issue, Appellant argues that his sentence is excessive. This 

issue challenges the discretionary aspects of Appellant’s sentence. See 

Commonwealth v. Haynes, 125 A.3d 800, 806 (Pa. Super. 2015). 

Pursuant to statute, Appellant does not have an automatic right to appeal 

the discretionary aspects of his sentence. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b). 

Instead, Appellant must petition this Court for permission to appeal the 

discretionary aspects of his sentence. Id. 

As this Court has explained, in order to reach the merits of a 

discretionary aspects claim, 

[w]e conduct a four-part analysis to determine: (1) whether 

[the] appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, see Pa.R.A.P. 

902 and 903; (2) whether the issue was properly preserved at 

sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify sentence, 

see Pa.R.Crim.P. 720; (3) whether [the] appellant’s brief has a 

fatal defect, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether there is a 

substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not 

appropriate under the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b). 

Commonwealth v. Leatherby, 116 A.3d 73, 83 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation 

omitted). 

(Footnote Continued) _______________________ 

On August 18, 2015, the trial court issued its Rule 1925(a) opinion. 

Appellant’s lone issue on appeal was included in his concise statement. 
J-S20018-16 

- 7 - 

 In this case, Appellant failed to object to the discretionary aspects of 

his sentence at the resentencing hearing. See N.T., 4/28/15, at 27-29. 

Furthermore, Appellant did not file a post-sentence motion. Appellant 

argues that he preserved the issue in his amended PCRA petition. See

Appellant’s Brief at 17. It is axiomatic, however, that a discretionary 

aspects claim may only be preserved after the sentence is pronounced. The 

issue cannot be preserved in a presentence filing, e.g., a sentencing 

memorandum or a PCRA petition. Therefore, Appellant waived his 

discretionary aspects claim. See Leatherby, 116 A.3d at 83. Accordingly, 

we may not reach the merits of Appellant’s discretionary aspects claim. As 

Appellant has waived his lone issue on appeal, we affirm the judgment of 

sentence. 

 Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 3/11/2016