Com. v. Adewumi, D. ( 2015 )

J-S41028-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
DAVID A. ADEWUMI
Appellant No. 1902 MDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 23, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-14-CR-0001348-2013
BEFORE: ALLEN, J., LAZARUS, J., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED AUGUST 07, 2015
David A. Adewumi appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed by
the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County following his conviction of two
counts each of stalking1 and harassment.2 Adewumi challenges the trial
court’s denial of his request to withdraw his nolo contendere plea in relation
to the aforementioned crimes. In the alternative, Adewumi challenges both
the legality and discretionary aspects of his sentence. After careful review,
we affirm in part, vacate in part and remand for resentencing.
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1
42 Pa.C.S. § 2709.1(a).
2
42 Pa.C.S. § 2709(a).
J-S41028-15
The trial court summarized the facts and procedural history of the
matter as follows:
[Appellant], David A. Adewumi[,] was charged with two counts
of [s]talking and two counts of [h]arassment.
By way of background, [Adewumi] requested that his bail be
lowered so he could seek mental health treatment. On
September 10, 2013, an Order was entered by the Honorable
Judge Kistler reducing bail from $50,000 to $1,000 and, if
released on bail, [Adewumi] was directed to attend the
Meadow[s] Psychiatric Clinic for a mental health evaluation and
to follow the recommendations of the evaluator. He was to
report to the Meadows Psychiatric Clinic within four hours of
release from the Centre County Correctional Facility. He was
also ordered to have no contact with [T.L.], the stalking victim in
this case. On February 10, 2014, a bench warrant was issued
for failure to appear. [Adewumi] did not go to the Meadows but
instead fled to California. He was returned to Pennsylvania
through the extradition process. Bail was rescinded and was set
on April 16, 2014[,] at $50,000 straight.
On September 16, 2014, [Adewumi] entered a [nolo contendere
plea] and signed a written [nolo contendere] colloquy.
[Adewumi] filed a pro se document on October 6, 2014, despite
having counsel appointed to represent him at that time, raising
several convoluted issues including an apparent challenge of his
plea and seeking to defend himself[,] which seemed to relate
more to his other cases. Subsequent to the charges being filed
in the herein stalking case, [Adewumi] was charged with
institutional vandalism at docket number CP-14-CR-1367-2013.
While he was incarcerated in connection with the stalking case,
he caused damage by tampering with a sprinkler system at
Centre County Correctional Facility. [Adewumi] was also
charged with making false reports at docket number CP-14-CR-
1694-2013. He made false complaints that corrections officers
at Centre County Correctional Facility had grabbed his genitals.
These two cases were consolidated and are [also] currently on
appeal with the Honorable Superior Court.
[Adewumi] was scheduled for sentencing on October 15, 201[4].
On that date, he made a [motion to withdraw his nolo
contendere plea]. The scheduled sentencing date was continued
-2-
J-S41028-15
to allow the Commonwealth adequate time to respond to his
motion. On October 23, 2013, this [c]ourt heard [Adewumi’s
motion] which was denied and [Adewumi] was sentenced.
A pre-sentence investigation was prepared which this [c]ourt
considered. For Count 1, Stalking, [Adewumi] was sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for a period of not less than one (1) year
nor more than (5) years in a state correctional institution. Credit
was given of fifty-five days served. For Count 2, Stalking, he
was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of not less
than one (1) year nor more than (5) years in a state correctional
institution. For Count 3, Harassment, he was placed on
probation for a period of twelve months to run consecutive to the
sentence imposed at Count 2. For Count 4, Harassment, he was
ordered to pay a fine of $50.00. These sentences are to run
consecutive to those imposed on [Adewumi’s] other docket
numbers[.] [Adewumi] did not file [p]ost-[s]entence [m]otions.
Trial Court Opinion, 1/9/15, at 1-2.
Adewumi raises the following issues on appeal:
1. Did the trial court err in not permitting Adewumi to withdraw
his plea?
2. Did the trial court impose a manifestly excessive sentence
and abuse its discretion?
3. Where stalking is not qualified [as] a crime of violence, did
the lower court err in finding [Adewumi to be Recidivism Risk
Reduction Incentive] ineligible?
Appellant’s Brief, at 5-6.
“A trial court’s decision regarding whether to permit a guilty plea to be
withdrawn should not be upset absent an abuse of discretion.”
Commonwealth v. Pardo, 35 A.3d 1222, 1227 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citation
omitted). An attempt to withdraw a nolo contendere plea is considered
based upon the same standard as an attempt to withdraw a guilty plea. See
Commonwealth v. Boatwright, 590 A.2d 15, 19 (Pa. Super. 1991). A
-3-
J-S41028-15
defendant must show a “fair and just” reason for withdrawing a plea that
does not cause “substantial prejudice” to the Commonwealth. Id. “The
proper inquiry . . . is whether the accused has made some colorable
demonstration, under the circumstances, such that permitting withdrawal of
the plea would promote fairness and justice.” Commonwealth v.
Carrasquillo, ___ A.3d ___, 2015 WL 3684430, at *8 (Pa. 2015).
However, “a bare assertion of innocence is not, in and of itself, a sufficient
reason to require a court to grant such a request.” Id. at *1.
As noted by our Supreme Court in Carrasquillo, prior decisions of the
Court had lent the impression that a claim of innocence in connection with a
request to withdraw a guilty or nolo contendere plea prior to sentencing was
a per se fair and just reason for the withdrawal of the plea. See id. at *7.
In clarifying the Court’s stance, Carrasquillo provides that trial courts have
discretion to deny the withdrawal of a plea involving a mere assertion of
innocence, particularly where such an assertion lacks plausibility. Id. at *8.
The circumstances present in Carrasquillo that led to a lack of plausibility
involved the strength of the Commonwealth’s case, Carrasquillo’s insincerity
and manipulation of the system, and the farfetched explanation Carrasquillo
provided of his innocence. See id. at *3, 8.
Here, Adewumi did not proclaim his innocence when he first made the
request to withdraw his nolo contendere plea on October 15, 2014, the day
he had been scheduled for sentencing. Instead, Adewumi indicated his
unhappiness with counsel and the outcome of the case. Subsequently, the
-4-
J-S41028-15
court heard argument on Adewumi’s motion to withdraw the plea on October
23, 2015. During these proceedings, Adewumi asserted his innocence, but
only after the Commonwealth pointed out that he had not done so. Later in
the proceedings, when the court questioned him directly, Adewumi again
asserted his innocence.
The record reveals, however, that Adewumi consistently manipulated
the criminal justice system throughout the pendency of this matter.
Adewumi was represented by a series of different attorneys; one was unable
to continue representing Adewumi because Adewumi failed to maintain
contact with the attorney, while Adewumi asserted the ineffectiveness of
another. Adewumi repeatedly alternated between proceeding with counsel
and proceeding pro se, apparently doing so when he considered it to be
convenient to his case. While incarcerated for the instant harassment and
stalking charges, Adewumi convinced the trial court to reduce his bail so that
he could be released and check himself into a mental health facility for
treatment. Instead of entering the treatment facility as agreed, however,
Adewumi fled to California and had to be extradited to Pennsylvania at
significant cost to the Commonwealth.
During the motion to withdraw and sentencing proceedings, Adewumi
continued to demonstrate deceitful and manipulative tendencies. Adewumi
claimed that his attorney was ineffective, yet switched from representing
himself to proceeding with the very same “ineffective” attorney representing
him for the sentencing itself. The Commonwealth presented testimony
-5-
J-S41028-15
during the proceedings on the motion to withdraw indicating that earlier on
that day, while the victim’s mother was testifying to the impact of
Adewumi’s actions, Adewumi “broke into a wide grin and [] made an
exaggerated wink with his left eye as [the victim’s mother] was describing
how hard this was on her daughter.” N.T. Motion to Withdraw Guilty
Plea/Sentencing, 10/23/14, at 85. For these reasons, though Adewumi
eventually asserted his innocence, we agree with the trial court that “the
motion to withdraw the plea was meant to further harass and intimidate the
victim and her family.” Trial Court Opinion, 1/9/15, at 5. Furthermore, the
Commonwealth’s evidence implicating Adewumi indicates that his assertions
of innocence are implausible. Carrasquillo, supra, at *8.
Moreover, we agree with the trial court that the Commonwealth would
be prejudiced by the withdrawal of Adewumi’s plea. To demonstrate
prejudice in connection with the withdrawal of a plea requires “a showing
that due to events occurring after the plea was entered, the Commonwealth
is placed in a worse position than it would have been had trial taken place as
scheduled.” Commonwealth v. Kirsch, 930 A.2d 1282, 1286 (Pa. Super.
2007). In Kirsch, we determined that the reluctance of a witness to testify
did not result in prejudice to the Commonwealth sufficient to deny the
withdrawal of a guilty plea. We also noted that it “[was] not a situation
where in the interim a witness ha[d] died or left the jurisdiction, or where
key evidence ha[d] been inadvertently lost or destroyed.” Id. at 1287.
-6-
J-S41028-15
Conversely, here, two significant witnesses who would have testified
for the Commonwealth were located outside the jurisdiction at the time the
trial was scheduled to occur. The Commonwealth had purchased non-
refundable plane tickets, and the witnesses were prepared to fly to
Pennsylvania from Arizona and California to testify. However, in reliance on
Adewumi’s plea, the Commonwealth informed the individuals that they were
not needed for trial and the flights were not used. As such, the
Commonwealth would be prejudiced because it would bear the burden of
again locating these individuals outside the Commonwealth and arranging
for their transportation to Pennsylvania for trial if Adewumi’s plea were
withdrawn.
Since Adewumi’s nolo contendere plea stands, we turn to the issues
Adewumi raises regarding his sentence.3 An illegal sentence presents a
question of law, and we have a plenary standard of review.
Commonwealth v. Williams, 997 A.2d 1205, 1208 (Pa. Super. 2010).
Adewumi first asserts that his sentence is illegal because he is eligible
for a Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive (RRRI) sentence. The trial court
did not consider an RRRI sentence for Adewumi, finding that Adewumi is
precluded from this type of sentence because of the violent nature of his
____________________________________________
3
Because we conclude that the trial court imposed an illegal sentence, we
will not address the discretionary sentencing issue Adewumi raises regarding
the length of his sentence.
-7-
J-S41028-15
offenses.4 Adewumi contends that stalking is not a “crime of violence,”
citing to the list of crimes in 42 Pa. C.S. § 9714(g). 5 However, the stalking
statute itself provides that violation of a protection from abuse (PFA) order is
a “crime of violence.” See 18 Pa.C.S. § 2709.1(c); see also
Commonwealth v. Bortz, 909 A.2d 1221, 1223 (Pa. 2006) (“‘crime of
violence’ occurs when there is a violation of an extant PFA order issued
under 23 Pa.C.S. § 6108. This language is explicit and free from
ambiguity.”) The stalking charges for which Adewumi was instantly
sentenced involved actions in direct violation of a PFA order the victim had
obtained against Adewumi.6 Thus, we find that Adewumi is not entitled to
an RRRI sentence.
____________________________________________
4
The relevant portion of the RRRI statute includes that an “eligible offender”
is a defendant who meets certain eligibility requirements including that the
individual “[d]oes not demonstrate a history of present or past violent
behavior.” 61 Pa.C.S. § 4503.
5
Section 9714 deals generally with sentences for second and subsequent
offenses and lists crimes that are considered to be crimes of violence “[a]s
used in this section.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9714(g). Thus, the listed crimes have no
bearing on whether a crime of violence was committed instantly, particularly
where the stalking statute provides that violation of a PFA order constitutes
a crime of violence. See 18 Pa.C.S. § 2709.1(c).
6
The victim obtained a PFA order on April 19, 2013, prohibiting Adewumi
from contacting or following her. The PFA order was amended on April 23,
2013, and May 14, 2013, ultimately extending the expiration of the order to
October 13, 2014.
-8-
J-S41028-15
Adewumi next asserts that his sentence is illegal because the crime of
harassment merges with the crime of stalking for sentencing purposes. 7 “A
claim that crimes should have merged for sentencing purposes raises a
challenge to the legality of the sentence.” Commonwealth v. Quintua, 56
A.3d 399, 400 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citing Commonwealth v. Allen, 24 A.3d
1058, 1062 (Pa. Super. 2011)). Pursuant to our Judicial Code,
[n]o crimes shall merge for sentencing purposes unless the
crimes arise from a single criminal act and all of the statutory
elements of one offense are included in the statutory elements of
the other offense. Where crimes merge for sentencing purposes,
the court may sentence the defendant only on the higher graded
offense.
42 Pa.C.S. § 9765. In the instance of the crimes of harassment and
stalking, this Court has determined that “one can harass without stalking,
but one cannot stalk without also harassing. Stalking is simply a more
serious form of harassment. Consequently, we find that harassment is a
constituent offense of stalking.” Commonwealth v. Reese, 725 A.2d 190,
192 (Pa. Super. 1999).
Here, Adewumi’s sentence includes incarceration for two stalking
charges, probation for one harassment charge, and a fine for a second
harassment charge. One stalking charge alleges that “[b]etween 03/31/13 –
____________________________________________
7
This argument was not raised prior to its inclusion in Adewumi’s appellate
reply brief. However, we may sua sponte “address an illegal sentence and
remand the matter to the trial court even in the absence of the preservation
of the claim as the issue is non-waivable.” Commonwealth v. Mitchell,
986 A.2d 1241, 1244 (Pa. Super. 2009).
-9-
J-S41028-15
05/15/13, . . . [Adewumi] repeatedly appeared at locations where he knew
the victim would be present, to include her high school, her bus stop outside
the high school, and her place of employment.” Criminal Complaint, at 2.
One of the harassment charges is directly related, as it is based upon the
identical language and same course of conduct. Likewise, the second
stalking charge and second harassment charge are predicated on identical
language and the same course of conduct, including that “[b]etween
03/31/13 – 05/15/13, . . . [Adewumi] repeatedly communicated to the
victim through text messages and emails.” Id. at 2-3. Thus, each
harassment charge is based upon the same criminal act as one of the
stalking charges and therefore merges into the correlated stalking charge.
Reese, supra.Because the trial court erroneously sentenced Adewumi regarding the
harassment charges in addition to the stalking charges, we remand so that
the trial court can resentence Adewumi based upon the stalking charges
only. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9765; see also Commonwealth v. Wilson, 934
A.2d 1191 (Pa. 2007) (where appellate court’s disposition upsets trial court’s
original sentencing scheme, remanding for resentencing is appropriate
disposition).
- 10 -
J-S41028-15
Judgment of sentence affirmed with respect to the trial court’s refusal
to permit the withdrawal of Adewumi’s plea and vacated with respect to
separate sentencing for stalking and harassment charges. Case remanded
for resentencing. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/7/2015
- 11 -