Background
Dwight Williams was convicted of several offenses, including carrying a firearm on the public streets or public property of Philadelphia under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6108. On appeal he challenged the statute on constitutional grounds but had not presented that challenge to the trial court. He attempted to avoid ordinary preservation rules by describing the issue as one implicating the legality of sentence, a category of claim that Pennsylvania appellate courts may review despite some forms of waiver. The appeal thus concerned the boundary between a genuine illegal-sentence claim and an unpreserved constitutional attack on the underlying offense. Williams received no additional penalty on the Section 6108 count, but the conviction remained part of the judgments under review.
The opinion was filed on August 12, 2026. Its procedural posture matters because the appellate court reviewed the ruling under the standard assigned to the particular issue, rather than deciding the dispute anew. That distinction shaped both the scope of review and the relief available.
The Court’s Holding
The Superior Court affirmed. Judge Kunselman’s precedential opinion held that Williams could not transform an unpreserved challenge to the constitutionality of Section 6108 into a legality-of-sentence question simply by labeling it that way. Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 302(a) requires even constitutional issues to be raised first in the trial court, giving that court an opportunity to address and potentially correct the claimed error. Decisions reviewing preserved constitutional challenges to criminal statutes did not eliminate that requirement. The panel reaffirmed its recent treatment of the same issue and dismissed the constitutional claim as waived. With the only appellate argument unavailable, it concluded that the no-penalty sentence imposed for the Section 6108 conviction was legal and affirmed the judgments of sentence.
The disposition is limited to the issues properly presented and preserved. Practitioners should read the result together with the governing standard of review and should not assume that the panel independently resolved factual matters committed to the trial court or agency.
Key Takeaways
- A constitutional challenge to the statute of conviction must be preserved in the trial court.
- Calling an issue a legality-of-sentence claim does not make an attack on the underlying offense nonwaivable.
- Criminal practitioners should raise constitutional objections before or during trial and renew them in the procedural vehicle applicable to the case.
Why It Matters
The opinion matters for Pennsylvania appellate lawyers because legality of sentence is often invoked as an escape from waiver. Williams draws a firm line: the doctrine does not supply merits review for an unpreserved constitutional challenge to a criminal prohibition. Philadelphia firearms cases in particular should preserve any attack on Section 6108 expressly and at the earliest available stage.
For Pennsylvania litigators, the decision is also a reminder to frame the requested relief precisely, preserve the controlling issue at the earliest stage, and build a record matched to the appellate standard. Those steps often determine whether the reviewing court reaches the merits and what remedy it can order.