J

- S27029

- 15

NON
- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION
- SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENN SYLVANIA 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]om pulsion, [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 t hen 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 coun sel, 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] su bsequently 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 faile d 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 Pierce 1 test to the extent Appellant failed to establish his trial counsel’s actions did not have a
reasonable strategic basi s 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 Commonwea lth 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 th e 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 adequat ely disposed of the claim in its Rule 1925(a) opinion.Circulated 06/19/2015 02:58 PMCirculated 06/19/2015 02:58 PMCirculated 06/19/2015 02:58 PMCirculated 06/19/2015 02:58 PMCirculated 06/19/2015 02:58 PMCirculated 06/19/2015 02:58 PMCirculated 06/19/2015 02:58 PMCirculated 06/19/2015 02:58 PMCirculated 06/19/2015 02:58 PMCirculated 06/19/2015 02:58 PM