Williams rule in Pennsylvania

2019See Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988, 992 (Pa. Super. 2014).

2017See Mill'er, 102 A.3d at 992 .

2016Therefore, the petitioner’s burden is to show that testimony provided by the uncalled witnesses “would have been helpful to the defense.” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Auker, 681 A.2d 1305, 1319 (Pa. 1996)). 18 As stated above, the PCRA court found that Williams’ trial counsel was ineffective both in his failure to investigate potential expert witnesses and in failing to call expert witnesses to testify at trial in support of Williams’ defense.

2016Therefore, the petitioner’s burden is to show that testimony provided by the uncalled witnesses “would have been helpful to the defense.” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Auker, 681 A.2d 1305, 1319 (Pa. 1996)). 18 As stated above, the PCRA court found that Williams’ trial counsel was ineffective both in his failure to investigate potential expert witnesses and in failing to call expert witnesses to testify at trial in support of Williams’ defense.

2016Therefore, the petitioner’s burden is to show that testimony provided by the uncalled witnesses “would have been helpful to the defense.” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Auker, 681 A.2d 1305, 1319 (Pa. 1996)). 18 As stated above, the PCRA court found that Williams’ trial counsel was ineffective both in his failure to investigate potential expert witnesses and in failing to call expert witnesses to testify at trial in support of Williams’ defense.

2016Therefore, the petitioner’s burden is to show that testimony provided by the uncalled witnesses “would have been helpful to the defense.” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Auker, 681 A.2d 1305, 1319 (Pa. 1996)). 18 As stated above, the PCRA court found that Williams’ trial counsel was ineffective both in his failure to investigate potential expert witnesses and in failing to call expert witnesses to testify at trial in support of Williams’ defense.

1985Two years later, in Commonwealth v. Miller, 490 Pa. 457 , 417 A.2d 128 (1980), we addressed the question of whether the rule in Williams was to be applied retroactively, and we held that the Williams rule was not to be applied to arrests made before November 18, 1978, the date on which Williams was filed.

1985Two years later, in Commonwealth v. Miller, 490 Pa. 457 , 417 A.2d 128 (1980), we addressed the question of whether the rule in Williams was to be applied retroactively, and we held that the Williams rule was not to be applied to arrests made before November 18, 1978, the date on which Williams was filed.

2019Compare Trial Court Opinion, 12/14/2018, at 4, with Williams, 941 A.2d at 27 .

2019Compare Trial Court Opinion, 12/14/2018, at 4, with Williams, 941 A.2d at 27 .

2026Before reviewing the merits of Williams’s claim, we must determine whether: “(1) the appeal is timely; (2) the appellant has preserved his issue; (3) his brief includes a concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of an appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of his sentence; and (4) the concise statement raises a substantial question whether the sentence is inappropriate under the Sentencing Code.” Commonwealth v. Green, 204 A.3d 469, 488 (Pa.Super. 2019); see also Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) (stating that an appellant who challenges the discretionary aspects of a sentence “sha

2025See Pa.R.Crim.P. 583 cmt.; Pa.R.Crim.P. 579; accord Commonwealth v. Chase, 431 A.2d 224, 225 (Pa. 1981) (holding a motion to sever made five days prior to trial was untimely and hence waived).4 ____________________________________________ 4 Additionally, Williams’s issue fails because he has not established prejudice.

2025See Williams, 245 A.3d at 719 .

2025“We apply a de novo standard of review and plenary scope of review to questions of legality of sentence.” Commonwealth v. Risoldi, 276 A.3d 279, 281 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citation omitted).

2025Commonwealth v. Hall, [] 80 A.3d 1204, 1211 ([Pa.] 2013).

2025Date: 8/18/2025 ____________________________________________ 8 While Williams’ claim would have been more at least somewhat more tenable had he argued that his counsel was ineffective for asking such questions of Detective McAndrews in the first place, “[t]his Court will not act as counsel and will not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant.” Commonwealth v. Tchirkow, 160 A.3d 798 , 804 (quoting Coulter v. Ramsden, 94 A.3d 1080, 1088 (Pa. Super. 2014)). - 12 -

2023Id. at 917-18 (stating that “here, the injury is the loss of the property itself”).

2023See Commonwealth v. Williams, 732 A.2d 1167, 1176 (Pa. 1999) (criticizing PCRA court’s “decision to incorporate the Commonwealth’s brief to supply the reasons for dismissal of [appellant’s] petition” in death penalty case, and remanding for the PCRA court to address claims that required “additional consideration”); see also Commonwealth v. Fulton, 876 A.2d 342, 345 (Pa. 2002) (applying Williams rule to non-capital PCRA appeal; recognizing need for “independent judicial analysis” when first PCRA petition was summarily dismissed without a hearing).

2023See Commonwealth v. Williams, 732 A.2d 1167, 1176 (Pa. 1999) (criticizing PCRA court’s “decision to incorporate the Commonwealth’s brief to supply the reasons for dismissal of [appellant’s] petition” in death penalty case, and remanding for the PCRA court to address claims that required “additional consideration”); see also Commonwealth v. Fulton, 876 A.2d 342, 345 (Pa. 2002) (applying Williams rule to non-capital PCRA appeal; recognizing need for “independent judicial analysis” when first PCRA petition was summarily dismissed without a hearing).

2022In the seminal case Gaito v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 412 A.2d 568, 571 (Pa. 1980), our Supreme Court held that if the parolee has met bail requirements on his new charges but remains in custody solely on the Board’s detainer, then the time the parolee spends in custody “shall be credited against [the] original sentence.” On the other hand, if a parolee “remains incarcerated prior to trial because [the parolee] has failed to satisfy bail requirements on the new criminal charges, then the time spent in custody shall be credited to [the] new sentence.” Id.

2022In the seminal case Gaito v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 412 A.2d 568, 571 (Pa. 1980), our Supreme Court held that if the parolee has met bail requirements on his new charges but remains in custody solely on the Board’s detainer, then the time the parolee spends in custody “shall be credited against [the] original sentence.” On the other hand, if a parolee “remains incarcerated prior to trial because [the parolee] has failed to satisfy bail requirements on the new criminal charges, then the time spent in custody shall be credited to [the] new sentence.” Id.

2022See Burton’s Brief at 20-24; see also Burton, 936 A.2d at 526-27 .6 Both the answer and the letter state: that Ms. Williams disavowed her statements to police implicating, inter alia, Burton; that police had threatened her and her husband to obtain the incriminating statements against Burton; and that Ms. Williams was unwilling to testify for the Commonwealth.

2022Rush, 265 A.3d at 797-98 ; see also Johnson, 2022 WL 541520 , at *5. ____________________________________________ 5 This Court in Rush did not cite to Adamitis. - 16 - J-A18023-22 Accordingly, there is no merit to Erie’s claim that Adamitis compels affirmance of the trial court.

2022Rush, 265 A.3d at 797-98; see also Johnson, 2022 WL 541520 , at *5. ____________________________________________ 5 This Court in Rush did not cite to Adamitis. - 16 - J-A18023-22 Accordingly, there is no merit to Erie’s claim that Adamitis compels affirmance of the trial court.

2022(Respondent’s Br. at 8.) “[A]n appeal will be dismissed when the occurrence of an event renders it impossible for the court to grant the requested relief.” Taylor v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 746 A.2d 671, 674 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000).

2022Khalil v. Williams, 244 A.3d 830 (Pa. Super. 2021) (“Khalil III”).

2022Khalil v. Williams, 244 A.3d 830 (Pa. Super. 2021) (“Khalil III”).

2022Compare PCRA Court Opinion, 7/29/21, at 21, 23-24 with Commonwealth v. Gacobano, 65 A.3d 416, 419-20 (Pa. Super. 2013) (noting that under the law of the case doctrine, which directs discretion, a court should not reopen questions decided by a judge of the same court or a (Footnote Continued Next Page) -9- J-A09026-22 Burton concedes that Ms. Williams’s immunity answer—which he claims he first discovered in 2018—contains the same information as was in Ms. Williams’s letter, which he possessed at least as early as 2003.