J-S45045-16 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA 

 Appellee 

v. 

RANDY WILLIAMS, A/K/A TRAVIS LEE 

MORIARTY 

 Appellant No. 195 WDA 2016 

Appeal from the PCRA Order January 7, 2016 

in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County 

Criminal Division at No.: CP-02-CR-0009320-2006 

BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and PLATT, J.* 

MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.: FILED AUGUST 19, 2016 

Appellant, Randy Williams, a/k/a Travis Lee Moriarty,1 appeals from 

the order denying his timely, counseled first petition filed pursuant to the 

Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541–9546. Appellant 

claims ineffective assistance of trial counsel and an illegal sentence. We 

affirm. 

____________________________________________ 

*

 Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 

1

 The original caption conflates two names Appellant uses, Randy Williams 

and Travis Lee Moriarty. To avoid further confusion, we have revised the 

caption to conform to the prior naming usage. In his direct appeal, and 

periodically in this record, Appellant’s name is given as Randy Williams, with 

an alternate name of Travis Lee Moriarty. We have amended the caption 

accordingly. 
J-S45045-16 

- 2 - 

We derive the facts pertinent to our review of Appellant’s properly 

preserved collateral claims from our independent review of the certified 

record. 

On June 15, 2006, uniformed Pittsburgh police officers Chalene 

McGinty and Farquar Holland, on routine patrol in a marked police vehicle, 

observed Appellant sitting in a blue Sebring at the corner of Shadeland 

Avenue and Woodland Avenue, described as a high drug traffic area. (See

N.T. Trial, 3/24/09, at 45-49). The Sebring was in the roadway, partially 

obstructing traffic. Appellant sat in the front passenger seat. The police 

observed him in a suspicious hand-to-hand transaction involving the 

exchange of currency for an unknown substance with an unidentified male 

outside the vehicle. (See id. at 48). 

When the police approached to investigate, Appellant abandoned the 

owner of the car, his friend and drug supplier, Gary Pettus, and led them on 

a high speed chase through several neighborhoods involving two separate 

stolen vehicles. When he crashed the first car, belonging to Pettus, the 

police attempted unsuccessfully to restrain him by use of a Taser, and with a 

black jack. 

A private citizen, Eugene Toomer, tried to intervene, but Appellant 

subdued him, stole his car, and resumed his attempted escape. Mr. Toomer 

testified he heard one of the police officers yelling, “I tased him, but it didn’t 

[faze] him.” (Id. at 116). 
J-S45045-16 

- 3 - 

The police finally captured Appellant with the assistance of canines 

when they surrounded a house he had broken into belonging to a woman 

named Joyce Cager. Once Appellant was in custody, police recovered 146 

bags of heroin from his front pants pocket, $37.00, a cellphone, and in the 

vehicle, a pistol. 

Independently of this case, but related to an issue on appeal, Officer 

Holland was later terminated from the Pittsburgh police department over 

charges apparently involving claims that he was involved in unsworn 

falsification and forgery stemming from a claim for retirement benefits. At 

the time of Appellant’s trial, Officer Holland’s case was pending. (See id. at 

8-9). The trial court granted the Commonwealth’s motion in limine, 

prohibiting reference to Holland’s pending charges, subject to “revisiting it 

for good cause shown.” (Id. at 10). 

At trial, Ms. Cager, who had originally told police that Appellant held 

her in a headlock, testified that “[h]e had his arm around my neck, but not 

forcibly. Just like hugging me.” (N.T. Trial, 3/26/09, at 187). Ms. Cager 

further testified that although she did not know Appellant, she realized at 

the courthouse that she knew his mother. (See id. at 189-90). Appellant 

testified in his own defense. 

 A jury convicted Appellant of two counts of robbery of a motor vehicle, 

possession with intent to deliver (PWID), resisting arrest, fleeing and 
J-S45045-16 

- 4 - 

eluding, unlawful restraint, and related offenses.2 On October 7, 2009, the 

trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of not less than nine nor more 

than eighteen years of incarceration. (See N.T. Sentencing, 10/07/09, at 

37). 

This Court affirmed the judgment of sentence on direct appeal. (See 

Commonwealth v. Randy Williams, a/k/a Travis Lee Moriarty, 55 

A.3d 130 (Pa. Super. 2012)). Our Supreme Court denied allowance of 

appeal on January 4, 2013. (See Commonwealth v. Williams, 60 A.3d 

536 (Pa. 2013)). Appellant filed a timely pro se PCRA petition on October 2, 

2013. The PCRA court appointed counsel who filed amended petitions. The 

court dismissed the petition, after due notice pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule 

of Criminal Procedure 907, on January 7, 2016. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(1). 

This timely appeal followed.3 

Appellant presents four questions on appeal: 

I. Whether trial counsel gave ineffective assistance by 

failing to attack the credibility of [f]ormer Police Officer Faquar 

Holland? 

II. Whether trial counsel gave ineffective assistance for 

failing to request a justification instruction? 

____________________________________________ 

2

 Appellant was acquitted of aggravated assault, and various VUFA charges. 

3

 February 6, 2016 fell on a Saturday. The PCRA court did not order a 

statement of errors complained of on appeal. On February 11, 2016, the 

court filed an order referencing its Notice of Intent to Dismiss, filed and 

dated December 4, 2015, for the reasons of its decision. See Pa.R.A.P. 

1925. 
J-S45045-16 

- 5 - 

III. Whether trial counsel gave ineffective assistance for 

failing to fully cross-examine Joyce Cager? 

IV. Whether the PCRA [c]ourt erred by failing to grant 

relief when Appellant was sentenced to an illegal sentence? 

(Appellant’s Brief, at 5). 

Our standard and scope of review for the denial of a PCRA 

petition is well-settled. 

[A]n appellate court reviews the PCRA court’s findings of 

fact to determine whether they are supported by the record, 

and reviews its conclusions of law to determine whether 

they are free from legal error. The scope of review is 

limited to the findings of the PCRA court and the evidence of 

record, viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing 

party at the trial level. 

Commonwealth v. Spotz, ––– Pa. ––––, 84 A.3d 294, 311 

(2014) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 

To establish trial counsel’s ineffectiveness, a petitioner must 

demonstrate: (1) the underlying claim has arguable merit; 

(2) counsel had no reasonable basis for the course of action 

or inaction chosen; and (3) counsel’s action or inaction 

prejudiced the petitioner. See Strickland v. Washington,

466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); 

Commonwealth v. Pierce, 515 Pa. 153, 527 A.2d 973 

(1987). 

Id. at 303 n.3. Furthermore, 

[A] PCRA petitioner will be granted relief only when he 

proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his 

conviction or sentence resulted from the ineffective 

assistance of counsel which, in the circumstances of the 

particular case, so undermined the truth-determining 

process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence 

could have taken place. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)(ii). 

Counsel is presumed effective, and to rebut that 

presumption, the PCRA petitioner must demonstrate that 
J-S45045-16 

- 6 - 

counsel’s performance was deficient and that such 

deficiency prejudiced him. 

Id. at 311–12 (most case citations, internal quotation marks and 

other punctuation omitted). “Counsel’s assistance is deemed 

constitutionally effective once this Court determines that the 

defendant has not established any one of the prongs of the 

ineffectiveness test.” Commonwealth v. Rolan, 964 A.2d 398, 

406 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citations and internal quotation marks 

omitted) (emphasis in original). 

Commonwealth v. Freeland, 106 A.3d 768, 775 (Pa. Super. 2014). 

Here, in his first issue, Appellant maintains that trial counsel was 

ineffective in not attacking the credibility of former police officer Holland 

“through Toomer.” (Appellant’s Brief, at 20) (emphasis added). We

disagree. 

First, and foremost, Officer Holland did not testify. So he could not be 

impeached. Secondly, Appellant’s argument depends on an incorrect 

premise of fact. Mr. Toomer did not identify Officer Holland as saying, “I 

tased him, but it didn’t [f]aze him.” (N.T. Trial, 3/24/09, at 116). Mr. 

Toomer only referred to one of the police. (See id.). 

Appellant improperly and incorrectly conflates the statement at issue 

with Mr. Toomer’s later testimony. Mr. Toomer testified that Officer Holland 

was the only police officer involved in his scuffle with Appellant that he could 

identify by name, not that former Officer Holland said “I tased him, but it 

didn’t [f]aze him.” (See Appellant’s Brief, at 18; (citing N.T. Trial, 3/25/09, 

at 118)). 
J-S45045-16 

- 7 - 

To the contrary, the record supports the opposite conclusion. Officer 

Holland hit Appellant with a “black jack” or slap jack. Officer McGinty 

Tasered him. (See N.T. Trial, 3/27/09, at 350-51; see also

Commonwealth’s Brief, at 26). 

More substantively, because there is no dispute that Appellant was 

tased, and Appellant himself testified that he was tased, there is no 

conceivable prejudice to Appellant that could arise from the statement that 

he was tased, whoever said it. Simply put, there was nothing in the 

statement to impeach. 

Similarly, the fact that Appellant continued to try to evade the police 

even after he was tased is supported by the record, and not subject to 

dispute. 

Prosecutor: 

Q. Did [Appellant] ever attempt to surrender himself? 

Officer McGinty: 

A. No. 

Q. Was he repeatedly beaten on the face and head area? 

A. I tasered him, and like I testified before, at that time, 

Officer Holland did use a slap jack in order to try and subdue him 

and place him under arrest. 

Q. Beyond that, any force used against him by yourself or 

Officer Holland? 

A. No. Other than Officer Holland after he tried to, I 

believe get him out of the vehicle, he went to Mr. Toomer’s car. 

(N.T. Trial, 3/27/09, at 350-51). We view the evidence of record in the light 

most favorable to the Commonwealth as the prevailing party at the trial 

level. See Spotz, supra at 311. 
J-S45045-16 

- 8 - 

Moreover, nothing in the record even remotely suggests, as Appellant 

advocates, that Holland could be impeached through any conceivable 

testimony by Mr. Toomer. (See Appellant’s Brief, at 20). Specifically, 

nothing in the record suggests Mr. Toomer had personal knowledge of 

Officer Holland’s separate legal difficulties, or was otherwise competent to 

testify about them. 

Finally, Appellant’s cited authority does not support his argument. 

Specifically, Appellant relies on Commonwealth v. Dawson, 702 A.2d 864, 

866-67 (Pa. Super. 1997), appeal denied, 724 A.2d 348 (Pa. 1998), for the 

proposition that “a remand for an evidentiary hearing was required 

concerning ineffective assistance as to counsel’s failure to properly crossexamine a witness[.]” (Appellant’s Brief, at 22). 

It bears noting that Dawson was a direct appeal. Defense counsel 

sought to impeach a Commonwealth witness who gave incriminating 

testimony while she had pending charges in another county, about her 

expectation of leniency in her own case. See Dawson, supra at 866-67. 

Contrary to Appellant’s explicit assertion, ineffective assistance was not at 

issue. Here, Holland, who did not testify, could not be impeached about the 

expectation of leniency in his own case for favorable testimony he had never 

given in the first place. 

Furthermore, leaving that aside, Appellant neglects to add that the 

Dawson Court nevertheless concluded that the error was harmless where 
J-S45045-16 

- 9 - 

the additional cross-examination sought by the appellant was cumulative 

and would not have affected the verdict. See id. at 867. Appellant fails to 

prove ineffectiveness. His first claim does not merit relief. 

In his second claim, Appellant argues that trial counsel provided 

ineffective assistance by failing to request a justification instruction. (See

Appellant’s Brief, at 26-28). Appellant contends, in effect, that his flight was 

justified because he feared he was in clear and imminent danger. (See id. 

at 28). We disagree. 

As in his first claim, Appellant relies on direct appeal caselaw to 

support his ineffectiveness argument on collateral appeal. (See Appellant’s 

Brief, at 27-28 (citing Commonwealth v. Billings, 793 A.2d 914 (Pa. 

Super. 2002), appeal denied, 805 A.2d 519 (Pa. 2002))). 

In order to be entitled to an instruction on justification by 

necessity as a defense to a crime charged, Appellant must offer 

evidence to show: 

(1) that (he) was faced with a clear and imminent harm, 

not one which is debatable or speculative; 

(2) that (he) could reasonably expect that (his) actions 

would be effective in avoiding this greater harm; 

(3) that there is no legal alternative which will be effective 

in abating the harm; and 

(4) that the Legislature has not acted to preclude the 

defense by a clear and deliberate choice regarding the values at 

issue. 

As with any offer of proof, it is essential that the offer 

meet a minimum standard as to each element of the defense so 

that if a jury finds it to be true, it would support the affirmative 
J-S45045-16 

- 10 - 

defense-here that of necessity. This threshold requirement is 

fashioned to conserve the resources required in conducting jury 

trials by limiting evidence in a trial to that directed at the 

elements of the crime or at affirmative defenses raised by the 

defendant. Where the proffered evidence supporting one 

element of the defense is insufficient to sustain the defense, 

even if believed, the trial court has the right to deny use of the 

defense and not burden the jury with testimony supporting other 

elements of the defense. 

Billings, supra at 916 (citation omitted). 

Here, Appellant maintains that “[t]here is a reasonable probability that 

but for counsel’s failure to request the instruction, the verdict concerning 

robbery of Toomer’s vehicle, resisting arrest and burglary would have been 

different.” (Appellant’s Brief, at 28). We disagree. Appellant’s reliance is 

misplaced. 

[A] defendant [raising a claim of ineffective assistance of 

counsel] is required to show actual prejudice; that is, that 

counsel’s ineffectiveness was of such magnitude that it ‘could 

have reasonably had an adverse effect on the outcome of the 

proceedings.’ This standard is different from the harmless error 

analysis that is typically applied when determining whether the 

trial court erred in taking or failing to take certain action. The 

harmless error standard, as set forth by this Court in 

Commonwealth v. Story, 476 Pa. [391], 409, 383 A.2d [155], 

164 [ (1978) ] (citations omitted), states that “[w]henever there 

is a ‘reasonable possibility’ that an error ‘might have contributed

to the conviction,’ the error is not harmless.” This standard, 

which places the burden on the Commonwealth to show that the 

error did not contribute to the verdict beyond a reasonable 

doubt, is a lesser standard than the Pierce prejudice standard, 

which requires the defendant to show that counsel’s 

conduct had an actual adverse effect on the outcome of 

the proceedings. 

Spotz, supra at 315 (some citations omitted) (emphases added). 
J-S45045-16 

- 11 - 

Furthermore, it bears noting that the Billings Court decided that the 

defense of justification by necessity was not met. See Billings, supra at 

916-17. It is not met here, either. 

Appellant had no justification to flee from the police. 

“We cannot state it any more clearly: there does not exist in 

Pennsylvania a right to resist arrest, under any circumstances.” 

Commonwealth v. Biagini, 655 A.2d 492, 499 (Pa. 1995). 

Here, as already noted, Officer McGinty testified that Appellant never 

even attempted to surrender himself. (See N.T. Trial, 3/27/09, at 350). 

When Appellant testified at trial he candidly conceded that his 

motivation in fleeing was not clear and imminent danger, but to avoid 

arrest: 

[T]he reason I jumped into the driver’s seat of my [sic] car and 

pulled off was because for one, I didn’t want to get caught with 

it (heroin) and for two, I didn’t want him (Pettus, his supplier) to 

get caught with it neither. 

 I figured if I got away with these drugs and neither one of 

us got caught with them, they never seen them, I will get to 

keep them, pay for them, and he would tell me you got away, I 

stopped him from getting in trouble and I am stopping me from 

getting in trouble from doing it, too. 

(N.T. Trial, 3/27/09, at 314-15). 

Appellant was not entitled to a jury instruction on the defense of 

justification by necessity. “[I]t is axiomatic that [trial] counsel will not be 

considered ineffective for failing to pursue meritless claims.” 
J-S45045-16 

- 12 - 

Commonwealth v. Pursell, 724 A.2d 293, 304 (Pa. 1999), cert. denied, 

528 U.S. 975 (1999). Appellant’s second claim lacks merit. 

Next, Appellant totally fails to address, develop any argument, or 

provide pertinent authority in support of his third claim, alleging ineffective 

cross-examination of Joyce Cager by defense counsel. (See Appellant’s 

Brief, at 28-29). It is not the role of this Court to develop an argument for a 

litigant. Accordingly, his third claim is waived.4 See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a), (b). 

Finally, in his fourth claim, Appellant claims he received an illegal 

sentence. (See Appellant’s Brief, at 29-31). Appellant maintains that a 

mandatory minimum sentence for PWID is illegal under Alleyne v. United 

States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), and Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 

A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. 2014), appeal denied, 121 A.3d 496 (Pa. 2015). 

However, this Court has concluded that Alleyne is not entitled to 

retroactive effect on collateral review. See Commonwealth v. Riggle, 119 

A.3d 1058, 1067 (Pa. Super. 2015). 

____________________________________________ 

4

 Moreover, our independent review of the record confirms that defense 

counsel not only cross-examined but re-cross-examined Ms. Cager. (See

N.T. Trial, 3/26/09, at 192-95, 196). Her testimony was favorable to 

Appellant. The sentencing court acknowledged that Ms. Cager had softened 

her testimony from her statement to the police. (See N.T. Sentencing, 

10/07/09, at 35). Defense counsel had no need to cross-examine further. 

“Where counsel has made a strategic decision after a thorough investigation 

of law and facts, it is virtually unchallengeable[.]” Commonwealth v. 

Rolan, 964 A.2d 398, 406 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citations omitted). 
J-S45045-16 

- 13 - 

Appellant suggests the possibility of a future change in the law. (See

Appellant’s Brief, at 31). However, this Court continues to follow controlling 

precedent as long as a decision has not been overturned by our Supreme 

Court. See Dixon v. GEICO, 1 A.3d 921, 926 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citing 

Marks v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 762 A.2d 1098, 1101 (Pa. Super. 2000)). 

Appellant’s fourth claim does not merit relief. 

Appellant fails to overcome the presumption of effectiveness. His 

claim of an illegal sentence is not reviewable retroactively on PCRA review. 

Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 8/19/2016