J-S08041-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

GARY D. WILLIAMS

Appellant No. 2428 EDA 2014

Appeal from the PCRA Order August 1, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-46-CR-0001658-2012

 CP-46-CR-0003236-2012

BEFORE: DONOHUE, J., WECHT, J., and JENKINS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY JENKINS, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 18, 2015

Appellant Gary D. Williams appeals pro se from the order of the 

Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas denying his petition filed 

pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S. § 9542, et 

seq. We affirm.

Appellant was charged at docket number at CP-46-CR-0001658-2012 

with theft by deception-false impression,1theft by unlawful taking-movable 

property,2receiving stolen property,3conspiracy,4and possessing 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S. § 3922(a)(1).

2 18 Pa.C.S. § 3921(a).

3 18 Pa.C.S. § 3925(a).

4 18 Pa.C.S. § 903(c).
J-S08041-15

- 2 -

instruments of crime.5 Appellant was charged at docket number CP-46-CR0003236-2012 with theft by deception–false impression and receiving stolen 

property. 

On October 21, 2013, Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea. At 

docket number CP-46-CR-0001658-2012, he pled guilty to theft by 

deception, conspiracy, and possessing instruments of crime. At docket 

number CP-46-CR-0003236-2012, he pled guilty to theft by deception. The 

trial court sentenced Appellant that same day pursuant to the negotiated 

guilty plea to concurrent terms of one-and-one-half to three years’ 

incarceration and four years’ probation for each theft by deception conviction 

and for the conspiracy conviction. Additionally, the trial court sentenced 

Appellant to a consecutive five-year term of probation for the possessing 

instruments of crime conviction. Appellant did not file post-sentence 

motions or a direct appeal.

On January 6, 2014, Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition.6 On 

January 14, 2014, the PCRA court appointed counsel, who filed a no-merit 

letter pursuant to Commonwealth v. Finley7and Commonwealth v. 

____________________________________________

5 18 Pa.C.S. § 907(a).

6 Appellant’s PCRA petition alleged errors with the arrest warrant and 

ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to file a motion regarding errors 

with the arrest warrant. Motion for Post Collateral Conviction Relief, 

1/6/2014, at 4.

7 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super.1998).
J-S08041-15

- 3 -

Turner,

8

and a petition to withdraw as counsel. On June 19, 2014, the trial 

court issued notice of its intent to dismiss the petition without a hearing 

pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 907 and granted 

counsel’s petition to withdraw. On August 1, 2014, the PCRA court 

dismissed the petition. On August 21, 2014, Appellant filed a timely notice 

of appeal. The trial court did not order a statement of errors complained of 

on appeal pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b) and 

Appellant did not file one. On August 29, 2014, the trial court issued an 

order adopting its June 19, 2014 notice of intent to dismiss as its Rule 

1925(a) opinion.

Appellant raises the following issues on appeal:

1. Can an arrest warrant be issued without probable cause 

supported by oath or affirmation?

2. Should have the private citizen criminal complaint gone 

before the district attorney for the commonwealth for 

approval or anyone empowered to take complaints under 

oath before an arrest warrant was issued for the 

defendant?

3. Can a police officer give verification under oath, based 

solely upon the complaint information? And not have any 

firsthand knowledge or knowledge gain through an 

independent investigation, that a crime has been omitted 

by the accused.

4. District Judge: Juanita A. Price abandon her neutral 

position by allowing Officer Robert Wilsbach to go under 

oath, to obtain an arrest warrant for the defendant without 

____________________________________________

8 544 A.2d 927 (Pa.1988).
J-S08041-15

- 4 -

having any factual knowledge that he had committed a 

crime.

5. Can a police Officer from another jurisdiction approve a 

criminal complaint for a crime that didn't occur in his 

jurisdiction?

Appellant’s Brief at 3 (verbatim).9 Appellant’s first four issues challenge the 

arrest warrants and the procedures used for issuance of the warrant. 

Appellant’s fifth issue maintains the Montgomery County police officers 

lacked jurisdiction to file criminal charges against Appellant. 

Our standard of review from the denial of post-conviction relief “is 

limited to examining whether the court’s determination is supported by the 

evidence of record and whether it is free of legal error.” Commonwealth v. 

Ousley, 21 A.3d 1238 (Pa.Super.2011) (citing Commonwealth v. 

Morales, 701 A.2d 516, 520 (Pa.1997)).

“A plea of guilty constitutes a waiver of all nonjurisdictional defects 

and defenses. When a defendant pleads guilty, he waives the right to 

challenge anything but the legality of his sentence and the validity of his 

plea.” Commonwealth v. Jones, 929 A.2d 205, 212 (Pa.2007) (quoting 

Commonwealth v. Montgomery, 401 A.2d 318, 319 (Pa.1979)). Further, 

“[a]llegations of ineffectiveness in connection with the entry of a guilty plea 

will serve as a basis for relief only if the ineffectiveness caused the 

defendant to enter an involuntary or unknowing plea.” Commonwealth v. 

____________________________________________

9 Appellant’s Brief does not contain page numbers. All page numbers are 

supplied by this Court.
J-S08041-15

- 5 -

Hickman, 799 A.2d 136, 141 (Pa.Super.2002) (quoting Commonwealth v. 

Allen, 557 Pa. 135, 732 A.2d 582 (Pa.1999)).

For ineffective assistance of counsel claims, the petitioner must 

establish: “(1) that the underlying claim has merit; (2) counsel had no 

reasonable strategic basis for his or her action or inaction; and (3) but for 

the errors or omissions of counsel, there is a reasonable probability that the 

outcome of the proceedings would have been different.” Ousley, 21 A.3d at 

1244 (quoting Commonwealth v. Rivera, 10 A.3d 1276, 1279 

(Pa.Super.2010)). “[C]ounsel is presumed to be effective and the burden of 

demonstrating ineffectiveness rests on appellant.” Id. “The failure to prove 

any one of the three [ineffectiveness] prongs results in the failure of 

petitioner’s claim.” Id. (quoting Rivera, 10 A.3d at 1279). 

The PCRA court found Appellant waived all claims challenging the 

arrest warrants and his counsel’s failure to challenge the warrants’ validity 

when he pled guilty. Order, 6/19/2014, at ¶11. Further, the PCRA court 

found the claims related to the arrest warrants lacked merit, because the 

warrants were signed by a judge, and found the ineffectiveness claims 

lacked merit because counsel cannot be found ineffective for failing to raise 

a meritless claim. Id., at ¶ 13.

The trial court acted within its discretion in finding Appellant waived all 

claims related to the arrest warrant. See Jones, 929 A.2d at 212; 

Hickman, 799 A.2d at 141. Further, the court acted within its discretion in 

finding the claims lacked merit. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 513 (requirements for 
J-S08041-15

- 6 -

issuance of arrest warrant); Commonwealth v. Taylor, 850 A.2d 684, 687 

(Pa.Super.2004) (“Probable cause is determined by considering the totality 

of the circumstances. Under the totality of the circumstances, a police 

officer must make a practical common sense decision whether, given all of 

the circumstances known to him at that time, including hearsay information, 

there is a fair probability that a crime was committed and that the suspect 

committed the crime.” (internal citations omitted)); Ousley, 21 A.3d at 

1244 (to establish ineffectiveness claim, petitioner must establish underlying 

claim had merit).

Appellant’s fifth claim alleges Montgomery County lacked jurisdiction 

to file criminal charges against him. This claim is waived because he failed 

to raise it in his PCRA petition. Commonwealth v. Fletcher, 986 A.2d 759, 

778 (Pa.2009) (finding claims waived when not in PCRA petition).

Because the trial court acted within its discretion in dismissing claims 

related to the arrest warrants and because Appellant waived his claim 

related to a lack of jurisdiction to file criminal charges, we affirm the 

dismissal.

Order affirmed. 
J-S08041-15

- 7 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 2/18/2015