Com. v. Williams, A. ( 2022 )

J-A21022-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
ANTHONY WILLIAMS :
:
Appellant : No. 2340 EDA 2021
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered October 19, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County
Criminal Division at CP-39-CR-0003401-2019
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., MURRAY, J., and McCAFFERY, J.
MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED OCTOBER 7, 2022
Anthony Williams (Appellant) appeals pro se1 from the order denying his
first petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42
Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541–9546. After careful consideration, we affirm.
On July 22, 2019, the Commonwealth charged Appellant with
aggravated assault, simple assault, and resisting arrest.2 The charges arose
“as a result of an incident with a corrections officer at the Lehigh County Jail.”
Appellant’s Brief at vii. The PCRA court explained:
On July 22, 2020, [Appellant], proceeding pro se, pleaded
guilty to Simple Assault, graded as a misdemeanor of the second
degree, and was immediately sentenced to 9-18 months in a State
Correctional Institution, to run consecutively to his sentence of 3-
____________________________________________
1 The PCRA court observed that Appellant “has a history of representing
himself.” N.T., 7/9/21, at 4.
2 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2702(a)(3), 2701(a)(1), and 5104.
J-A21022-22
7 years in case CR-1093-2019. [Appellant] did not file post-
sentence motions or an appeal.
On February 18, 2021, [Appellant] filed a pro se petition
pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), and [the PCRA
court] appointed Robert E. Sletvold, Esquire, to represent
[Appellant]. [Appellant] subsequently waived his right to
counsel[, filed a pro se amended PCRA petition on June 15, 2021,]
and[, after the PCRA court conducted a hearing pursuant to
Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998),] proceeded
to represent himself at a hearing on July 9, 2021. [Appellant]
alleges his guilty plea was unlawfully induced. Specifically,
[Appellant] claims he was threatened into pleading guilty by
prison staff; that he did not know he was on parole at the time of
his guilty plea; and that he was not given a proper guilty plea
colloquy.
PCRA Court Opinion, 10/19/21, at 1 (footnote omitted).
The PCRA court denied relief on October 19, 2021. Appellant filed a
timely notice of appeal. On December 7, 2021, the PCRA court ordered
Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. The Lehigh County Clerk of
Courts docketed Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement on December 29, 2021,
although the envelope filed with the statement bears a postal stamp date of
December 21, 2021. See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 192 A.3d 1149,
1152 n.4 (Pa. Super. 2018) (Pursuant to the prisoner mailbox rule, a
pro se filing by a prisoner is deemed filed on the date the prisoner delivers it
to prison authorities for mailing). On January 19, 2022, the PCRA court issued
an order stating, inter alia, that its “reasons for denying [Appellant’s] PCRA
petition were sufficiently addressed in [the] order and opinion filed October
19, 2021.” Order, 1/19/22, at 1 n.1. The PCRA court concluded Appellant’s
-2-
J-A21022-22
“appeal is without merit and … his judgment of sentence [should] be affirmed.”
Id.Appellant presents the following issues for our review:
1. Appellant’s guilty plea was not voluntarily and knowingly
[entered], in violation of his due process rights under the
U[nited] S[tates] [C]onstitution[.]
2. Appellant’s guilty plea was entered without all 6 mandatory
areas of inquiry for a guilty plea colloquy in violation of
Appellant’s rights under the due process clause of U[nited]
S[tates] [C]onstitution[.]
Appellant’s Brief at vi.
Our standard of review from the denial of a PCRA petition “is limited to
examining whether the PCRA court’s determination is supported by the
evidence of record and whether it is free of legal error.” Commonwealth v.
Ousley, 21 A.3d 1238, 1242 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citation omitted). The PCRA
court’s findings will not be disturbed unless there is no support for them in the
certified record. Commonwealth v. Lippert, 85 A.3d 1095, 1100 (Pa.
Super. 2014).
At the outset, we address the Commonwealth’s argument that Appellant
waived his issues “because he failed to preserve them at any stage below.”
Commonwealth Brief at 6. The Commonwealth correctly observes that
Appellant did not object at his plea colloquy, file post-sentence motions
challenging his plea, or raise the issue on direct appeal. Id. at 6-7 (citations
-3-
J-A21022-22
omitted).3 At the PCRA hearing, Appellant conceded he did not challenge his
plea prior to filing his PCRA petition. See N.T., 7/9/21, at 44. Thus, we agree
with the Commonwealth. However, in the absence of waiver, our review
confirms that Appellant’s issues would not merit relief.
To be eligible for relief under the PCRA, Appellant must plead and prove
by a preponderance of the evidence that his guilty plea was unlawfully
induced, and “the circumstances make it likely that the inducement caused
the petitioner to plead guilty and the petitioner is innocent.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. §
9543(a)(2)(iii). “Our law presumes that a defendant who enters a guilty plea
was aware of what he was doing,” and “[h]e bears the burden of proving
otherwise.” Commonwealth v. Pollard, 832 A.2d 517, 523 (Pa. Super.
2003) (citations omitted). On appeal, this Court evaluates the adequacy of
the plea colloquy and the voluntariness of the resulting plea by looking at the
totality of the circumstances. Commonwealth v. Yeomans, 24 A.3d 1044,
1047 (Pa. Super. 2011).
In both issues, Appellant argues his plea was not knowing or voluntary.4
In his first issue, Appellant asserts staff at the Lehigh County Jail threatened
____________________________________________
3 The Commonwealth also asserts that Appellant’s issues are meritless, and
relies on the PCRA court’s opinion, which “adequately addresses [Appellant’s]
appellate claim.” Commonwealth Brief at 8-9.
4 Appellant waived his right to counsel and appeared pro se at the guilty plea
hearing and PCRA hearing. As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has stated,
“pro se status confers no special benefit upon a litigant, and a court cannot
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-4-
J-A21022-22
him and coerced him into pleading. Appellant’s Brief at 1. Appellant claims
he was assaulted and threatened with assault. Id. at 3-4. He maintains he
lacked “free will” when he completed his written plea colloquy, because he
“had a legitimate fear for his life.” Id. at 4. Appellant states that he did not
“explain his fear” to the trial court during his oral plea colloquy because “a
correctional officer stood behind me,” and Appellant feared “the correctional
officer would tell his sergeant [] that I didn’t do what he told me to do under
duress.” Id.
We have explained:
The longstanding rule of Pennsylvania law is that a defendant may
not challenge his guilty plea by asserting that he lied while under
oath, even if he avers that counsel induced the lies. A person who
elects to plead guilty is bound by the statements he makes in open
court while under oath and may not later assert grounds for
withdrawing the plea which contradict the statements he made at
his plea colloquy.
Pollard, 832 A.2d at 523.
At the PCRA hearing, Appellant stated his “guilty plea was a threat. I
was forced, I was coerced into doing it by staff at the prison.” N.T., 7/9/21,
at 8. Appellant testified, “at the direction of staff, I was assaulted by an
inmate[.]” Id. at 16. Appellant stated that a sergeant directed him, “either
____________________________________________
be expected to become a litigant’s counsel or find more in a written pro se
submission than is fairly conveyed in the pleading.” Commonwealth v.
Blakeney, 108 A.3d 739, 766 (Pa. 2014).
-5-
J-A21022-22
you plead and get out of this jail or you will be assaulted again by either me
or the other inmate that assaulted you before.” Id. at 18.
The PCRA court did “not find [Appellant’s] testimony to be credible.”
PCRA Court Opinion, 10/19/21, at 2. The PCRA court also referenced
Appellant’s written colloquy in concluding there was “no merit to [Appellant’s]
allegation.” Id. at 2-3. The record supports the PCRA court’s findings. See
Commonwealth v. Medina, 92 A.3d 1210, 1214 (Pa. Super. 2014) (the
PCRA court’s credibility determinations, if supported by the record, are binding
on this Court). See also Commonwealth v. Martin, 1 A.3d 868, 888 (Pa.
2010) (stating that factual findings of the PCRA court, “which hears evidence
and passes on credibility of witnesses, should be given great deference”).
Like the PCRA court, we reviewed the notes of testimony from the plea
hearing. Appellant stated he “was not impaired in any way,” and was
answering questions truthfully. N.T., 7/22/20, at 5, 7. The trial court
addressed Appellant:
THE COURT: By pleading guilty here today, you’re giving up your
right to trial and everything that comes with trial. And, in fact,
you are a veteran of trial. You have, in fact, tried your own case
in the previous case. Nonetheless, we ask everyone to go over
this guilty plea colloquy form that goes over the rights that are
waived by pleading guilty. Do you remember going over this
guilty plea colloquy form?
[APPELLANT]: Yes, Your Honor. I have a copy here with me …
THE COURT: Great. Do you have any questions about the
document or about the rights that you’re giving up?
[APPELLANT]: No, Your Honor.
-6-
J-A21022-22
***
THE COURT: I’m going to mark [the written colloquy] as filed in
court, and then I will make sure it gets down to the clerk’s office
and becomes a formal part of the record. So, again, [Appellant],
these are questions that I always ask. Has anyone made any
promises to you about my sentence other than what we’ve spoken
about here in open court?
[APPELLANT]: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And has anybody forced you or threatened you to
get you to enter this plea?
[APPELLANT]: No.
Id. at 6-7, 9.
The trial court subsequently asked Appellant, “is there anything else that
you want to put on the record before I impose sentence?” Id. at 13. Appellant
answered: “No, not before sentence. Just that I ask that you instruct the
sheriffs to get me to Northampton County [to] address [] issues.” Id. The
trial court replied that it would facilitate Appellant’s transfer. Id. The hearing
continued:
THE COURT: Anything else, [Appellant]?
[APPELLANT]: Yes. With regard to [Appellant’s outstanding]
motions.
THE COURT: Yes.
[APPELLANT]: … I just want to address them. So at this point
we’re just going to withdraw them?
THE COURT: Perfect.
[APPELLANT]: Okay.
-7-
J-A21022-22
THE COURT: Yes. And we will put that either in a separate order
or on the sentencing sheet that any outstanding motions are
hereby withdrawn and dismissed. Thank you, [Appellant].
[APPELLANT]: Okay. Thank you. Yes.
Id. at 15-16. Appellant then addressed the trial court: “Can I ask you
something, Judge?” Id. at 16. When the trial court answered in the
affirmative, Appellant asked: “Would you be doing your 1925(a) statement
[] soon[?]” Id.
THE COURT: I have [an opinion]. I did it. And I think that we
were holding it up just to see if there was anything additional that
you intended to file. I have it, I can file it, and then you’re off to
the Superior Court.
[APPELLANT]: Did you want to have it sent to me? This way I
could get it in case they take me in a few days. Maybe it could be
[] faxed[?]
Id. at 16-17.
Finally, as the hearing concluded:
THE COURT: … Would you like me to appoint someone for you?
[APPELLANT]: Negative.
THE COURT: Negative. [Appellant], I can’t say that it’s been a
pleasure, but it sure has been a ride, hasn't it?
[APPELLANT]: Absolutely.
THE COURT: I wish you the best. …
Id. at 19.
-8-
J-A21022-22
The totality of the circumstances, including the notes of testimony from
Appellant’s plea hearing, support the PCRA court’s finding that Appellant was
not coerced or forced to plead guilty. Yeomans, supra.Within his first issue, Appellant additionally argues that his plea was
invalid because he did not know he was on parole, “and so I thought … there
would be no consequences.” Appellant’s Brief at 5-8. At the PCRA hearing,
Appellant stated he “didn't know about parole. At the time, Your Honor, this
case happened [when] I was in the prison. I had just came in for a parole
violation and I wasn’t told that I was on parole when that case happened.”
N.T., 7/9/21, at 8. Appellant claimed that if he knew he was on parole, he
would not have entered a plea, and would have gone to trial. Id. at 20.
We would likewise defer to the PCRA court’s determination regarding
Appellant’s parole claim. As the PCRA court explained:
[Appellant] claims he was unaware that he was on parole at
the time of his guilty plea and had he known, he would have gone
to trial. Even if [Appellant] was not aware that he was on parole
and what the consequences of his plea would be, it would not
affect the validity of his plea as a revocation of probation or parole
is a collateral consequence of pleading guilty. Commonwealth
v. Brown, 680 A.2d 884, 887 (Pa. Super. 1996). Furthermore,
between his oral colloquy and written colloquy, [Appellant]—who
advised the court that he was not on parole—was sufficiently
informed that his plea could result in a parole violation. See Notes
of Testimony (“N.T.”), July 22, 2020, p. 8-9; Guilty Plea Colloquy
form (“Form”), p. 9, No. 43.
PCRA Court Opinion, 10/19/21, at 3.
In his second issue, Appellant argues the trial court conducted an
inadequate plea colloquy. Appellant claims the trial court did not adhere to
-9-
J-A21022-22
the requirements of Pa.R.Crim.P. 590 (Pleas and Plea Agreements). Appellant
states he “was unaware of the consequences of” his plea, and the trial court
“failed to both go into and fully explain [the plea] adequately[.]” Appellant’s
Brief at 7-9. He contends the court “didn’t inquire into my understanding as
to what the maximum sentence without the plea would have been, at the time
I thought I was facing 10-20 years … I was under the wrong impression.” Id.
at 10-11. Appellant claims that “it is clear from the record that the sentencing
court failed to adequately inquire into the 6 mandatory areas required to
determine if Appellant’s guilty plea was knowing and understandably given.”
Id. at 12. Again, the record does not support Appellant’s argument.
A valid guilty plea colloquy must delve into six areas: (1) the nature of
the charges; (2) the factual basis for the plea; (3) the right to a jury trial; (4)
the presumption of innocence; (5) the maximum sentencing ranges; and (6)
the plea court’s power to deviate from any recommended
sentence. See Commonwealth v. Flanagan, 854 A.2d 489, 500 & n.8 (Pa.
2004).
In determining whether a guilty plea was entered knowingly and
voluntarily, ... a court is free to consider the totality of the
circumstances surrounding the plea. Furthermore, nothing in
[Rule 590] precludes the supplementation of the oral colloquy by
a written colloquy that is read, completed, and signed by the
defendant and made a part of the plea proceedings.
Commonwealth v. Bedell, 954 A.2d 1209, 1212-13 (Pa. Super. 2008)
(citations omitted); see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 590 cmt.
- 10 -
J-A21022-22
At the PCRA hearing, Appellant challenged the “mandatory inquiry to
the six areas under Rule 590. That was not done on the record[.]” N.T.,
7/9/21, at 31. However, in response to the PCRA court’s questioning,
Appellant testified:
THE COURT: Okay. Well, [the trial court at the plea hearing] did
say – [the trial court] covered the nature of the charge, simple
assault, with you, right? You agree with that on page 6 [of the
transcript from the plea hearing]?
[APPELLANT]: Yes.
THE COURT: And [the trial court] explained to you the maximum
penalty, two years in prison and/or $5,000 in fines; right?
[APPELLANT]: Yes.
THE COURT: And you said yes. Okay, and after [the trial court]
explained it [the trial court] said do you understand the charge
and the maximum possible penalty, and you said yes. And then
[the trial court] said, “By pleading guilty here today you are giving
up your right to trial and everything that comes with trial and, in
fact, you are a veteran of trial. You have, in fact, tried your own
case in a previous case, nonetheless, we ask everyone to go over
this guilty plea colloquy form that goes over the rights that are
waived when pleading guilty. Do you remember going over this
guilty plea colloquy form?” You said, “Yes, Your Honor, I have a
copy here with me,” and [the trial court] said, “Great. Do you
have any questions about the document or the rights you are
giving up,” and you said, “No, Your Honor.” Now, I assume you
read the guilty plea colloquy form before you signed it; right?
[APPELLANT]: Yes.
THE COURT: And you have an associate’s degree?
[APPELLANT]: Yes.
THE COURT: You can read, write, speak and understand English
without difficulty; right?
- 11 -
J-A21022-22
[APPELLANT]: Right.
THE COURT: And you could a year ago; right?
[APPELLANT]: Say that again, Your Honor?
THE COURT: You could read, write, speak an understand English
without difficulty a year ago; right?
[APPELLANT]: Yes.
THE COURT: Nothing has changed?
[APPELLAN T]: No.
THE COURT: So what is your beef here?
[APPELLANT]: My argument is that this isn’t the inquiry that is
required by Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 590.
THE COURT: Well, actually it is covered in your written colloquy.
Id. at 31-33.
The Commonwealth then questioned Appellant:
Q. Now, when we did the guilty plea on July 22, 2020, and I am
reading the transcript, do you agree the plea agreement was 9 to
18 months … consecutive to your receiving stolen property case?
A. Yes.
[COMMONWEALTH]: Judge, I know a transcript was prepared of
the July 22, 2020 guilty plea and sentencing, and I would ask that
be made part of the record of this hearing.
THE COURT: It will be made part of the record for the hearing.
[COMMONWEALTH]: In addition, I am not going to go through the
colloquy with [Appellant], the guilty plea written colloquy. I did
check the court file. The original guilty plea colloquy that was
completed by [Appellant] is in the court file and I would just ask
that be made part of the record of this hearing.
- 12 -
J-A21022-22
THE COURT: That would be made part of the record.
Id. at 42.
The record supports the PCRA court’s determination that Appellant was
“sufficiently apprised of all his rights and the potential consequences of
pleading guilty.” PCRA Court Opinion, 10/19/21, at 4. Appellant’s written and
oral colloquies were executed in conformance with Pa.R.Crim.P. 590. See id.
(citing notes of testimony from the July 22, 2020, plea hearing and written
guilty plea colloquy form). The PCRA court concluded:
[Appellant’s] claim that [the trial court] did not cover the six
areas required by Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 590 is
contradicted by the record. While [the trial court] may not have
asked the questions word-for-word as they are found in the
[R]ule, there is no requirement that a judge do so. The only
requirement is that a judge elicit information regarding the six
areas set forth in the comment to the rule, and between the
written and oral colloquies, this was sufficiently done in this case.
Pa.R.Crim.P. 590 (Comment) (the rule does not preclude the use
of a written colloquy that is read, completed, signed by the
defendant, and made part of the record of the plea proceedings,
so long as it is supplemented by some on-the-record oral
examination).
PCRA Court Opinion, 10/19/21, at 4.
For the above reasons, the PCRA court did not err or abuse its discretion
in denying relief.
Order affirmed.
- 13 -
J-A21022-22
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/7/2022
- 14 -