The Pennsylvania Superior Court has upheld the dismissal of William Mays' appeal concerning his conviction for murder and attempted murder. The court ruled that Mays' claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were without merit. This decision affects Mays, who is currently serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole.

The case stems from a shooting incident that occurred on April 9, 2011, in Philadelphia, where two men were shot, resulting in one death. Mays was convicted in 2013 and has since sought relief through the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), claiming his trial attorney failed to call an alibi witness.

Background

William Mays was convicted in 2013 for the murder of Michael Askew and the attempted murder of Saquanne Stanford. The shooting took place near a minivan in Philadelphia, where both victims suffered serious injuries. Askew died at the scene, while Stanford survived but sustained severe wounds.

During the investigation, police found ballistic evidence and identified Mays as a suspect based on witness statements and his own admissions to a cellmate. Mays was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, along with an additional prison term for related charges. After exhausting his direct appeals, Mays filed a PCRA petition in 2019, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Ruling

The Pennsylvania Superior Court, led by Judge Nichols, affirmed the PCRA court's dismissal of Mays' petition. The court found that Mays had previously agreed with his attorney's decision not to call additional witnesses during the trial. The court stated, "A defendant who makes a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent decision concerning trial strategy will not later be heard to complain that trial counsel was ineffective on the basis of that decision."

The court emphasized that Mays had the opportunity to present his alibi witness during the trial but chose not to. The ruling noted that Mays' wife, who could have provided an alibi, had already testified during the trial, although not specifically regarding Mays' whereabouts at the time of the shooting.

Impact

This ruling reinforces the principle that defendants cannot claim ineffective assistance of counsel when they have previously agreed to trial strategies. It highlights the importance of the defendant's role in the decision-making process during a trial. The outcome affects not only Mays but also sets a precedent for future cases involving similar claims of ineffective assistance.

By upholding the dismissal, the court has clarified that claims of ineffective assistance must show that the attorney's actions were not only deficient but also that they had a significant impact on the outcome of the trial. In this case, the court found no such evidence.

What's Next