J-S27029-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

ALAN WILLIAMS

Appellant No. 1841 EDA 2014

Appeal from the PCRA Order dated May 28, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County

Criminal Division at No: CP-09-CR-0000499-2010

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., STABILE, and FITZGERALD,*JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED JULY 20, 2015

Appellant Alan Williams appeals from the order of the Court of 

Common Pleas of Bucks County, which denied his request for collateral relief 

under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-46. For 

the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

The PCRA court summarized the facts and procedural history of this 

case as follows.

On July 12, 2010, [Appellant] was found guilty of [r]ape by 

[f]orcible [c]ompulsion, [r]ape by [t]hreat of [f]orcible 

[c]ompulsion, [c]riminal [a]ttempt – IDSI by [f]orcible 

[c]ompulsion, [s]exual [a]ssault, [i]ndecent [a]ssault by [t]hreat 

of [f]orcible [c]ompulsion, [t]erroristic [t]hreats with [i]ntent to 

[t]errorize [a]nother, and [f]alse [i]mprisonment. [Appellant] 

was then found to be a [s]exually [v]iolent [p]redator (“SVP”), 

and was sentenced on March 2, 2011 to serve sixteen (16) to 

____________________________________________

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S27029-15

- 2 -

forty (40) years in a state correctional institution followed by a 

period of probation of not less than 5 years.

Appellant, through counsel, subsequently filed a direct 

appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. The Superior 

Court affirmed the trial court’s decision on December 9, 2011. 

[Appellant] then filed a timely pro se [PRCA p]etition . . . on 

January 7, 2013, and counsel filed an [a]mended PCRA petition 

on September 16, 2013. Following an evidentiary hearing held 

September 23, 2013, November 14, 2013, and March 27, 2014, 

. . . [Appellant’s] amended petition for relief under the PCRA was 

denied on May 28, 2014 and [Appellant] subsequently filed a 

timely notice of appeal with the Superior Court[.]

PCRA Court Opinion, 9/4/14, at 1-2. Appellant filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) 

statement of errors complained of on appeal, arguing only that the “[t]rial 

counsel was ineffective when he failed to adequately consult with and review 

specific discovery materials (CDs containing multiple recorded phone calls) 

with [Appellant] prior to trial.” Rule 1925(b) Statement, 7/21/14. In 

response, the PCRA court issued a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, wherein it 

concluded Appellant’s ineffectiveness claim was without merit. Specifically, 

the PCRA determined Appellant failed to meet the Pierce1test to the extent 

Appellant failed to establish his trial counsel’s actions did not have a 

reasonable strategic basis or that Appellant suffered actual prejudice 

because of the trial counsel’s actions.

On appeal,2 Appellant repeats the same argument that he raised in his 

Rule 1925(b) statement. After careful review of the parties’ briefs, the 

____________________________________________

1 Commonwealth v. Pierce, 527 A.2d 973, 975 (Pa. 1987).

2

“In reviewing the denial of PCRA relief, we examine whether the PCRA 

court’s determination ‘is supported by the record and free of legal error.’” 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S27029-15

- 3 -

record on appeal, and the relevant case law, we conclude that the PCRA 

court’s Rule 1925(a) opinion authored by President Judge Jeffrey L. Finley, 

thoroughly and adequately disposes of Appellant’s issue on appeal.3 See

PCRA Court Opinion, 9/4/14, at 2-10. We, therefore, affirm the PCRA court’s 

order denying Appellant’s PCRA petition. We direct that a copy of the PCRA 

court’s September 4, 2014 opinion be attached to any future filings in this 

case.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/20/2015

(Footnote Continued) _______________________

Commonwealth v. Fears, 86 A.3d 795, 803 (Pa. 2014) (quoting 

Commonwealth v. Rainey, 928 A.2d 215, 223 (Pa. 2007)).

3 We observe Appellant’s brief is bereft of any discussion or argument with 

respect to the arguable merit prong of the Pierce test. As we recently 

emphasized, “[a] petitioner must prove all three factors of the Pierce test, 

or the [ineffectiveness] claim fails. In addition, on appeal, a petitioner must 

adequately discuss all three factors of the Pierce test, or the appellate 

court will reject the claim.” Commonwealth v. Reyes-Rodriguez, 111 

A.3d 775, 780 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en banc) (emphasis added) (citing Fears, 

86 A.3d at 804)). Despite Appellant’s failure to discuss the arguable merit 

prong on appeal, we need not address whether his ineffectiveness claim is 

waived because, as stated, the PCRA court adequately disposed of the claim 

in its Rule 1925(a) opinion. 
Circulated 06/19/2015 02:58 PM
Circulated 06/19/2015 02:58 PM
Circulated 06/19/2015 02:58 PM
Circulated 06/19/2015 02:58 PM
Circulated 06/19/2015 02:58 PM
Circulated 06/19/2015 02:58 PM
Circulated 06/19/2015 02:58 PM
Circulated 06/19/2015 02:58 PM
Circulated 06/19/2015 02:58 PM
Circulated 06/19/2015 02:58 PM