close

Man serving time for shooting at two people asks for new trial

By Patty Yauger pyauger@heraldstandard.Com 3 min read
article image -

A Fayette County Court of Common Pleas judge will await additional information from the district attorney’s office before he determines whether a convicted felon will get a new trial.

William “Wee Wee” Smith, 41, now serving a 20 year prison sentence for shooting at two people during a January 2012 incident that began outside a Uniontown pharmacy and ended at an apartment complex on Dunlap Street, is appealing the sentence.

During a hearing held on Thursday before President Judge John F. Wagner Jr., Smith said that his attorney missed opportunities to suppress evidence in the trial, contact a witness that may have countered prosecution testimony and did not offer appropriate information that would have allowed him to testify.

Smith, who unsuccessfully appealed to the state Superior Court following the sentence, filed this current appeal under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA).

Attorney Michael Garofalo, assistant public defender, represented Smith at the trial.

According to police, Dorian M. Harris contacted Uniontown police and advised officers that a man driving a blue van pulled a pistol on him outside of Walgreen pharmacy on West Main Street and robbed him of $165, a $50 gift card and an unspecified medication.

Harris claimed Smith then followed him as both left the store’s parking lot and fired five gunshots at his vehicle before they went different directions.

Police said that a weapon found in the house where Smith was located, was the weapon used during the incident.

Smith contends that Harris attempted to sell him drugs and he reported the incident to police.

During the hearing on Thursday, Smith, who represented himself, told Wagner that police erred in arresting him as the victims failed to identify him, and that a search of the house where he was located was illegal.

“There was no crime in the house,” said Smith, adding that when police came to the apartment he walked outside. “My DNA was not on the weapon.”

Smith told Wagner that the van identified by Harris and towed away by police was not his, and that testimony that he was wearing a black sweatshirt was also in error, that instead, he was wearing a brown sweatshirt.

Smith stated that Garofalo failed to contact a key witness — Chantel Randolph — to provide testimony at the trial that would have refuted police testimony.

Wagner accepted a written statement from Randolph sent to Smith about 18 months ago. In the statement, Randolph claimed that investigating officers had coerced her into allowing them to search her apartment.

“William Smith was arrested outside my home,” she said. “There was no crime in my home.”

Smith told Wagner that he doesn’t know where Randolph lives, and was unable to subpoena her due to his incarceration and lack of income.

Smith additionally claimed that Garofalo persuaded him not to testify at the trial, advising him that then-pending case witnesses would be brought in to testify against him and that he failed to secure his cell phone records that would have, if presented, confirm his repeated calls to police.

During cross-examination by assistant District Attorney Anthony Iannamorelli, Garofalo denied he would discourage his client from testifying by claiming that pending charges would discredit his testimony.

Garofalo said that the pros and cons of testifying on your own behalf was discussed with Smith, with Smith making the decision not to take the stand in his own defense.

The hearing was continued to an unspecified date.

CUSTOMER LOGIN

If you have an account and are registered for online access, sign in with your email address and password below.

NEW CUSTOMERS/UNREGISTERED ACCOUNTS

Never been a subscriber and want to subscribe, click the Subscribe button below.

Starting at $4.79/week.

Subscribe Today