Com. v. Lopez, E. ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • J-S58038-14
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                    IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    PENNSYLVANIA
    Appellee
    v.
    ERIC JAMES LOPEZ
    Appellant                No. 591 WDA 2014
    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 11, 2014
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Potter County
    Criminal Division at No(s): CP-53-CR-0000011-2013
    BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and PLATT, J.*
    MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:                    FILED DECEMBER 22, 2014
    Appellant, Eric James Lopez, appeals the judgment of sentence
    entered in the Potter County Court of Common Pleas, following his
    negotiated guilty plea to one count of simple assault and one count of
    recklessly endangering another person (“REAP”).1        We affirm and grant
    counsel’s petition to withdraw.
    The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows.
    Appellant entered into a plea agreement on March 6, 2014, on charges
    arising from an incident on December 9, 2012, in which Appellant pushed
    the victim to the ground and struck her repeatedly in the face. The victim
    ____________________________________________
    1
    18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2701(a), 2705.
    _________________________
    *Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
    J-S58038-14
    suffered a broken nose, broken jaw, broken cheekbone, and numerous
    lacerations and abrasions.        The trial court, however, later determined that
    the sentence the Commonwealth had recommended actually exceeded the
    statutory maximum sentence. Subsequently, the court allowed Appellant to
    revoke the earlier plea and enter a new negotiated and binding plea
    agreement.      Appellant entered the new plea on March 11, 2014, to one
    count of simple assault and one count of REAP.          The new plea agreement
    specifically provided that Appellant would not receive credit for time served.
    Counsel explained the provisions of the plea agreement to Appellant, and the
    court reiterated them when Appellant entered his new plea.           At the plea
    hearing, Appellant stated on the record that he understood the plea
    agreement and wished to proceed with it. The court imposed the agreed-
    upon sentence immediately following the plea proceedings.2
    Appellant timely filed notice of appeal on April 7, 2014. On April 10,
    2014, the court ordered Appellant to file a Rule 1925(b) statement. On April
    16, 2014, the court ordered Appellant to file a corrective Rule 1925(b)
    statement.     On April 22, 2014, Appellant’s counsel filed a Rule 1925(c)(4)
    statement of his intent to file an Anders brief.
    As a preliminary matter, appellate counsel seeks to withdraw his
    representation pursuant to Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    , 87 S.Ct.
    ____________________________________________
    2
    Counsel filed a petition with the trial court to withdraw as counsel on April
    1, 2014, which the court denied on April 9, 2014.
    -2-
    J-S58038-14
    1396, 
    18 L.Ed.2d 493
     (1967) and Commonwealth v. Santiago, 
    602 Pa. 159
    , 
    978 A.2d 349
     (2009).           Anders and Santiago require counsel to: 1)
    petition the Court for leave to withdraw, certifying that after a thorough
    review of the record, counsel has concluded the issues to be raised are
    wholly frivolous; 2) file a brief referring to anything in the record that might
    arguably support the appeal; and 3) furnish a copy of the brief to the
    appellant and advise him of his right to obtain new counsel or file a pro se
    brief to raise any additional points the appellant deems worthy of review.
    Santiago, supra at 173-79, 978 A.2d at 358-61.            Substantial compliance
    with these requirements is sufficient.           Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 
    934 A.2d 1287
    , 1290 (Pa.Super. 2007). “After establishing that the antecedent
    requirements have been met, this Court must then make an independent
    evaluation of the record to determine whether the appeal is, in fact, wholly
    frivolous.”    Commonwealth v. Palm, 
    903 A.2d 1244
    , 1246 (Pa.Super.
    2006) (quoting Commonwealth v. Townsend, 
    693 A.2d 980
    , 982
    (Pa.Super. 1997)).
    In Santiago, supra, our Supreme Court addressed the briefing
    requirements where court-appointed appellate counsel seeks to withdraw
    representation:
    Neither Anders nor McClendon[3] requires that counsel’s
    brief provide an argument of any sort, let alone the type of
    ____________________________________________
    3
    Commonwealth v. McClendon, 
    495 Pa. 467
    , 
    434 A.2d 1185
     (1981).
    -3-
    J-S58038-14
    argument that counsel develops in a merits brief. To
    repeat, what the brief must provide under Anders are
    references to anything in the record that might arguably
    support the appeal.
    *    *    *
    Under Anders, the right to counsel is vindicated by
    counsel’s examination and assessment of the record and
    counsel’s references to anything in the record that
    arguably supports the appeal.
    Santiago, supra at 176, 177, 978 A.2d at 359, 360. Thus, the Court held:
    [I]n the Anders brief that accompanies court-appointed
    counsel’s petition to withdraw, counsel must: (1) provide a
    summary of the procedural history and facts, with citations
    to the record; (2) refer to anything in the record that
    counsel believes arguably supports the appeal; (3) set
    forth counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is frivolous; and
    (4) state counsel’s reasons for concluding that the appeal
    is frivolous. Counsel should articulate the relevant facts of
    record, controlling case law, and/or statutes on point that
    have led to the conclusion that the appeal is frivolous.
    Id. at 178-79, 978 A.2d at 361.
    Instantly, counsel filed a petition for leave to withdraw representation.
    The petition states counsel reviewed the record and determined the appeal is
    wholly frivolous.   Counsel indicates he notified Appellant of the withdrawal
    request. Counsel also supplied Appellant with a copy of the brief and a letter
    explaining Appellant’s right to proceed pro se or with new privately retained
    counsel to raise any additional points or arguments that Appellant believes
    have merit. In his Anders brief, counsel provides a short summary of the
    facts and procedural history of the case with reference to the record.
    Counsel also refers to evidence in the record that may arguably support the
    -4-
    J-S58038-14
    appeal, and he provides citations to sentencing law. Counsel also states the
    reasons for his conclusion that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Thus, counsel
    has complied with the requirements of Anders and Santiago.
    As Appellant has filed neither a pro se brief nor a counseled brief with
    new privately retained counsel, we review this appeal on the basis of the
    issues raised in the Anders brief:
    WHETHER AN APPLICATION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL
    SHOULD    BE   GRANTED    WHERE  COUNSEL    HAS
    INVESTIGATED THE POSSIBLE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND
    FINDS THE APPEAL FRIVOLOUS?
    WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY
    IMPOSING [A] SENTENCE THAT DID NOT GIVE CREDIT
    FOR TIME SERVED?
    (Anders Brief at 4).
    Appellant argues his sentence should be reduced with proper credit for
    time served.   Appellant claims he is entitled to nearly fifteen months of
    credit for time he spent incarcerated on the offenses. Appellant concludes
    the trial court erred in failing to give Appellant the credit he claims he
    deserves. We disagree.
    As a general rule, the entry of a guilty plea constitutes a waiver of all
    defects and defenses except lack of jurisdiction, invalidity of the plea, and
    illegality of the sentence.     Commonwealth v. Main, 
    6 A.3d 1026
    (Pa.Super. 2010).      “We have recognized the importance of the plea
    bargaining process as a significant part of the criminal justice system.”
    Commonwealth v. Byrne, 
    833 A.2d 729
    , 735 (Pa.Super. 2003). “We are
    -5-
    J-S58038-14
    aware of no authority that provides an impediment to a defendant’s express,
    knowing, and voluntary waiver of a statutory right if that waiver is key in
    obtaining a bargained-for exchange from the Commonwealth.” 
    Id. at 736
    .
    Case law supports the conclusion that a defendant can waive his right to
    credit for time served as part of a negotiated plea bargain. 
    Id.
    In the instant case, Appellant entered a negotiated and binding guilty
    plea.   The record makes clear Appellant understood the terms of the plea
    agreement, which included no credit for time served.      Appellant made no
    claim that his plea was unknowing, involuntary, or unintelligent.    Because
    the sentence imposed was lawful, we see no reason to disturb it.
    Accordingly, we affirm and grant counsel’s petition to withdraw.
    Judgment of sentence affirmed.
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 12/22/2014
    -6-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 591 WDA 2014

Filed Date: 12/22/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/13/2024