Com. v. Diaz, C. ( 2017 )

J-S56009-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
CHRISTOPHER DIAZ
Appellant No. 2148 EDA 2016
Appeal from the PCRA Order June 22, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0014503-2009
BEFORE: BOWES, STABILE, AND PLATT,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED OCTOBER 26, 2017
Christopher Diaz appeals from the June 22, 2016 order denying PCRA
relief. He alleges that the PCRA court erred in dismissing his petition without
an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.
Appellant and his two cohorts committed a home invasion robbery on
August 28, 2009, and seriously injured the two residents of the home. At
approximately 2:45 a.m., Alexis Rodriguez and Waleska Figueroa were
awakened by Appellant, his co-defendant Ray Torres, and a third
unidentified co-conspirator. Appellant stabbed Mr. Rodriguez three times in
the stomach with a knife while Torres struck Ms. Figueroa in the head
several times with a baseball bat. They stole $2,100 and fled the home.
* Retired Senior Judge specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S56009-17
Following an oral colloquy, Appellant entered a negotiated nolo
contendere plea to robbery, conspiracy, and possession of an instrument of
crime on January 31, 2011. He was sentenced that day to a negotiated
term of imprisonment of four to ten years. Appellant did not file a direct
appeal.
On May 4, 2011, Appellant filed a timely pro se PCRA petition.
Attorney J. Matthew Wolfe was appointed as PCRA counsel, and counsel filed
an amended petition on Appellant’s behalf on October 24, 2014. Appellant
claimed therein that his plea was not knowing and voluntary due to his “lack
of total comprehension of the English language,” and that plea counsel was
ineffective for failing to ensure that he understood the plea. PCRA Petition,
10/24/14, at 2. He requested an evidentiary hearing. The Commonwealth
moved to dismiss the amended petition without a hearing pursuant to Rule
907, and on June 22, 2015, the PCRA court granted the motion and
dismissed the petition.
Appellant filed a timely appeal on July 8, 2016. Appellant presents
one issue for our review: Did the Lower Court err in dismissing the
Appellant’s PCRA Petition without holding an evidentiary hearing where the
Appellant raised significant issues of material fact relating to whether his
plea was knowing and voluntary and whether counsel was ineffective in
failing to ensure that the plea was proper? Appellant’s brief at 8.
-2-
J-S56009-17
In reviewing the denial of relief under the PCRA, we are limited to
determining whether the record supports the findings of the PCRA court and
whether the court’s order is otherwise free of legal error. Commonwealth
v. Treiber, 121 A.3d 435, 444 (Pa. 2015); Commonwealth v. Roane, 142
A.3d 79, 86 (Pa.Super. 2016). A petitioner is not entitled to an evidentiary
hearing. If the PCRA court is satisfied there is no genuine issue of material
fact, that no purpose would be served by such a hearing, and that petitioner
is not entitled to relief, it may dismiss the petition without a hearing.
Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(1); Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091(Pa.
2010).
Furthermore, “counsel is presumed effective, and in order to overcome
that presumption, a PCRA petitioner must plead and prove that: (1) the legal
claim underlying the ineffectiveness claim has arguable merit; (2) counsel's
action or inaction lacked any reasonable basis designed to effectuate
petitioner's interest; and (3) counsel's action or inaction resulted in prejudice
to petitioner.” Commonwealth v. Mason, 130 A.3d 601, 618 (Pa. 2015).
The following principles apply to plea proceedings. A criminal
defendant is entitled to effective counsel during the plea process.
Commonwealth v. Bedell, 954 A.2d 1209 (Pa.Super. 2009). There is a
presumption that when a defendant enters a plea, “he was aware of what he
was doing, and the burden of proving involuntariness is upon him.”
Commonwealth v. Nelson, 666 A.2d 714, 717 (Pa.Super. 1995).
-3-
J-S56009-17
However, after imposition of sentence, a defendant is not permitted to
withdraw his plea unless he shows prejudice that results in a manifest
injustice. Bedell, supra. That entails proof that a plea was entered
involuntarily, or unknowingly, which involves a determination that is made
by examining the totality of circumstances surrounding entry of the plea.
Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 108 A.3d 821 (Pa. 2014). “[C]laims of
counsel’s ineffectiveness in connection with a guilty plea will provide a basis
for relief only if the ineffectiveness caused an involuntary or knowing plea.”
Commonwealth v. Yager, 685 A.2d 1000, 1004 (Pa.Super. 1996) (en
banc).
Appellant alleges that plea counsel was ineffective because she failed
to determine the impact of his lack of English comprehension on his ability to
knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily enter a plea. He contends that this
claim raised an issue of material fact that required an evidentiary hearing to
enable the court to make the ineffectiveness determination.
The Commonwealth counters that the record of the plea colloquy
refutes Appellant’s claim. Appellant testified under oath that he read, wrote,
and comprehended English, and he answered the court’s questions without
hesitation or need for an interpreter. Counsel for Appellant represented to
the court that she had discussed the consequences of the plea and was
satisfied that Appellant was competent to enter the plea.
-4-
J-S56009-17
The record reveals the following. Lenora Clayton, Esquire, represented
Appellant at the plea hearing. The court placed Appellant under oath and
conducted an extensive colloquy. Appellant repeatedly acknowledged that
he understood the information conveyed and the questions asked. He
confirmed that he was pleading no contest to two counts of robbery, felonies
of the first degree, and one count each of conspiracy as a felony of the first
degree and possessing an instrument of crime, in this case, a knife. He
professed his understanding that the Commonwealth would recommend a
sentence of four to ten years and restitution.
The following exchange occurred between the court and Appellant:
Q. How old are you, sir?
A. 21.
Q. How far have you gone in school?
A. I was in my last year before I caught this case.
Q. So you’ve completed 11th grade?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. And I assume you read, write and understand the English
language?
A. Yes.
Q. And as you appear in court today right now, are you under
the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever been treated for a mental illness?
-5-
J-S56009-17
A. No.
Q. Do you understand that you do have the absolute right to
plead not guilty to the charges against you and go to trial? Do
you understand that?
A. Yes.
N.T. Guilty Plea, 1/31/11, at 4-6.
The court went on to explain the presumption of innocence, the
Commonwealth’s burden of proof, Appellant’s right to call witnesses on his
own behalf and cross-examine Commonwealth witnesses, and Appellant
confirmed his understanding of these rights on the record. At that point, the
court explained the appellate rights Appellant was foregoing by pleading nolo
contendere:
Q. When you plead no contest, your right to file an appeal is
limited to three grounds. The first is that your plea of no contest
was not made voluntarily. So I'm going to ask you directly, are
you pleading no contest today voluntarily and of your own free
will? Are you pleading no contest voluntarily today, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you pleading no contest of your own free will?
A. Yes.
Q. Has anyone threatened you or forced you in any way to make
you plead no contest?
A. No.
Q. Aside from the understanding that in exchange for the
Commonwealth's recommendation of a sentence of four to ten
years and restitution of $1050, aside from that, is there any
other understanding or agreement that exists between you and
-6-
J-S56009-17
the Assistant District Attorney that would cause or induce you to
enter into this plea of no contest?
Is that the entire agreement between you and the
Commonwealth?
A. Yes.
Q. Four to ten and the restitution?
A. Yes.
Q. And are you satisfied with her advice and her representation?
A. Yes.
N.T. Guilty Plea, 1/31/11, at 12-13.
Counsel represented to the court that she discussed with Appellant his
right to plead not guilty and go to trial, he understood his rights, and that
she was satisfied that he was competent and qualified to enter into the
negotiated nolo contendere plea. Appellant professed his understanding of
the consequences of the plea. The court stated that it was satisfied, “based
on your answers and those of your attorney . . . that your plea today is
offered on a voluntary basis.” Id. at 14.
The attorney for the Commonwealth defined each of the crimes to
which Appellant was pleading no contest, the elements, and the maximum
sentences that could be imposed. Again, the court asked Appellant if he
wished to enter the plea of no contest, and he responded in the affirmative.
Following a summarization of the evidence, the court asked Appellant
whether he was able to hear and understand that summary, and Appellant
-7-
J-S56009-17
responded in the affirmative. When asked how he pled to each of the
charges, Appellant responded “No contest.” Id. at 23. The pre-sentence
report having been waived, the court proceeded to sentencing. Appellant
declined to speak on his own behalf. Following his sentencing, Appellant
was informed of his post-sentence and appeal rights.
The PCRA court found that Appellant’s assertion that he did not have a
full grasp of the English language was “belied by the record.” PCRA Court
Opinion, 1/17/17, at 9. The court pointed to Appellant’s testimony under
oath that he that read, wrote, and understood English, and that he
completed the eleventh grade in school. He had not been treated for mental
illness, was not under the influence of any medications, and he repeatedly
represented in open court that he understood the nature and consequences
of his plea. He stated that he was pleading voluntarily and that no one
induced him to plead against his wishes. Appellant confirmed the summary
of facts and acknowledged the maximum possible sentences for the
offenses. The PCRA court found that Appellant was competent and qualified
to enter into the plea, he understood the consequences of his plea, and
entered it knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. It concluded further,
since Appellant was bound by statements made under oath during his guilty
plea and could not withdraw the plea based upon new representations, there
were no genuine issues concerning any material fact. Hence, “no purpose
-8-
J-S56009-17
would be served by any further proceedings.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(1); see
also Commonwealth v. Yeomans, 24 A.3d 1044 (Pa.Super. 2011).
The record supports the PCRA court’s finding that Appellant’s nolo
contendere plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made.
Appellant’s responses to the court’s questions at the plea hearing were
appropriate, he conveyed the information requested in English without
hesitation, and demonstrated that he understood the nature and
consequences of the plea. Appellant, who was born in Philadelphia,
repeatedly acknowledged under oath that he understood English, knew what
he was doing in entering the plea, and that he did so voluntarily. Since he is
bound by those representations, dismissal of Appellant’s petition without an
evidentiary hearing was appropriate. No relief is due.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/26/2017
-9-