J-S60019-17

____________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

ROSHA CHARLES WILLIAMS 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 45 WDA 2017

Appeal from the PCRA Order December 6, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County 

Criminal Division at No(s): 

CP-25-CR-0000749-2014

BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 30, 2017

Appellant Rosha Charles Williams appeals from the December 6, 2016 

Order entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County denying without 

a hearing his Petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 

Pa.C.S. §§ 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm. 

On May 4, 2016, Appellant entered an open guilty plea to possession 

of an offensive weapon. The court sentenced Appellant on July 15, 2016, to 

a term of 111⁄2 to 23 months’ incarceration, followed by 2 years’ probation. 

The court credited Appellant with 690 days and he was paroled the day of 

sentencing. Counsel was granted leave to withdraw by Order dated August 

4, 2016. Appellant did not file an appeal pro se. Instead, on August 16, 

2016, he filed the instant PCRA petition. The PCRA court appointed an 

attorney, who filed a supplemental Petition on October 21, 2016, alleging 
J-S60019-17

- 2 -

that the trial court had improperly calculated Appellant’s prior record score 

and his trial counsel had provided ineffective assistance for failing to file an 

appeal on this basis. On November 9, 2016, the court filed a Notice of 

Intent to Dismiss the Petition pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. On December 

6, 2016, the PCRA court dismissed the Petition. Appellant timely appealed

and filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement.

Appellant raises the following question for our review:

Whether the PCRA Court committed legal error and abused its 

discretion in dismissing the Defendant’s Motion for Post 

Conviction Collateral Relief in that trial counsel was ineffective 

for failure to present the claim that the Defendant’s prior record 

score was incorrectly calculated, which should have taken the 

form of an appellate challenge to the discretionary aspects of 

sentencing as the use of an incorrect prior record score 

comprising a substantial question for purposes of appellate 

review?

Appellant’s Brief at 2.

We review the denial of PCRA relief to determine if the PCRA court's 

findings are supported by the record and without legal error.

Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 65 A.3d 339, 345 (Pa. 2013). We limit our 

scope of review to the findings of the PCRA court and the evidence of record, 

viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party at the PCRA court 

level. Commonwealth v. Koehler, 36 A.3d 121, 131 (Pa. 2012). However, 

this Court is unable to review a claim that is inadequately developed. See 

Commonwealth v. Clayton, 816 A.2d 217, 221 (Pa. 2002) (OAJC) (“[I]t is 

a well-settled principle of appellate jurisprudence that undeveloped claims 
J-S60019-17

- 3 -

are waived and unreviewable on appeal.” (citation omitted)); 

Commonwealth v. Williams, 732 A.2d 1167, 1175 (Pa. 1999) (recognizing 

“unavailability of relief based upon undeveloped claims for which insufficient 

arguments are presented on appeal”); Pa.R.A.P. 2119 (setting forth briefing 

requirements).

Appellant utterly fails to develop his ineffectiveness claim. In his 2-

paragraph argument section, the sum and substance of his argument is the 

following:

The employment of an incorrectly calculated prior record score 

does not implicate the legality of sentence so as to that provision 

of the PCRA statute. However, if a prior record score was 

employed a claim is constituted relating to ineffective assistance 

of counsel for failure of counsel to present that claim in the form 

of an appellate challenge to the discretionary aspects of 

sentencing as the use of an incorrect prior record score would 

state a substantial question for purposes of appellate review.

Appellant’s Brief at 3-4. 

Appellant has made no effort to provide citation to the record or to 

legal authority to develop and support his ineffectiveness claim, as required 

by our rules of appellate procedure. Rather, he recites his criminal record 

going back to 1995, and concludes that his prior record score was 2 not 4. 

This bare and conclusory recitation does not provide a basis from which we 

can provide meaningful appellate review. These substantial defects render

Appellant’s claim waived. 

Order affirmed.

President Judge Emeritus Stevens joins the memorandum.
J-S60019-17

- 4 -

Judge Olson concurs in the result.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/30/2017