Com. v. Sutherland, C. ( 2017 )

J-S74023-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
CORNELL SUTHERLAND :
:
Appellant : No. 3703 EDA 2015
Appeal from the PCRA Order November 20, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0003313-2012
BEFORE: OTT, J., RANSOM, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
CONCURRING STATEMENT BY STEVENS, P.J.E.:
FILED FEBRUARY 08, 2017
While I agree with the Majority’s conclusion that Appellant’s PCRA
petition is patently untimely and that he failed to demonstrate any of the
statutory exceptions applied to his time-barred petition, even had Appellant
overcome the PCRA time-bar, this Court has held a “person who elects to
plead guilty is bound by the statements he makes in open court while under
oath and he may not later assert grounds for withdrawing the plea which
contradict the statements he made at his plea colloquy.” Commonwealth
v. Pollard, 832 A.2d 517, 523 (Pa.Super. 2003) (citations omitted).
As the trial court stressed in its Rule 1925(a) Opinion, Appellant had
the benefit of an extensive oral colloquy in addition to the written one he
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S74023-16
had completed. Trial Court Opinion, filed 11/20/15, at 8-9. In his signed
written colloquy, Appellant indicated that he did not have any physical or
psychological problems that would prevent him from understanding his plea,
and he confirmed this at the outset of his oral colloquy. During his oral
colloquy, the trial court explained what the Commonwealth would have to
prove were Appellant to go to trial and the maximum penalties that could be
imposed along with the collateral consequences of his plea.
In addition, the trial court deferred sentencing for four days at
Appellant’s request to enable his family to be present. Although he had
these additional days to reconsider his plea, he never requested to withdraw
the same. See id. at 9.
Moreover, “[a] plea of guilty effectively waives all nonjurisdictional
defects and defenses.” Commonwealth v. Gibson, 561 A.2d 1240, 1242
(Pa.Super. 1989), appeal denied, 525 Pa. 642, 581 A.2d 568 (1990).
Appellant did not pursue a direct appeal; therefore, Appellant's guilty plea
provides an additional basis for waiver of the ineffective assistance of
counsel challenges he purports to assert herein. Id.
Therefore, Appellant's frivolous claims, even if timely asserted, would
not merit relief.
-2-