Com. v. Chase, C. ( 2023 )

J-S23004-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
CORDELL CHASE :
:
Appellant : No. 124 EDA 2023
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 21, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0010234-2021
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and KING, J.
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.: FILED AUGUST 29, 2023
Cordell Chase appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the
Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia after Chase pled guilty to possession
of a controlled substance.1 Chase claims his guilty plea was not entered
knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. However, as Chase failed to preserve
the claim in the lower court, we find his claim waived and hereby affirm.
On August 23, 2022, Chase entered a negotiated guilty plea to one count
of possessing a controlled substance in exchange for the Commonwealth’s
withdrawal of a charge for possession with intent to deliver a controlled
substance. See N.T., Guilty Plea Hearing, 8/23/2022, at 20-21. On December
____________________________________________
1 Chase admitted he had possessed three- and one-half grams of marijuana
and approximately five grams of cocaine base. See N.T., Guilty Plea
Hearing, 8/23/2022, at 22.
J-S23004-23
21, 2022, the trial court sentenced Chase to three years of probation
supervised by the drug and alcohol unit of the Philadelphia Adult Probation
and Parole Department. Chase did not file a post-sentence motion to withdraw
his guilty plea but filed this pro se appeal on January 3, 2023. Plea counsel
was permitted to withdraw his appearance, and the trial court appointed
present counsel to represent Chase on appeal.
In his sole issue on appeal, Chase challenges the validity of his guilty
plea by claiming the plea was not made knowingly, voluntarily, and
intelligently. However, “[i]ssues not raised in the trial court are waived and
cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.” Pa.R.A.P. 302(a). To preserve
an issue related to the validity of his guilty plea, Chase was required to
“object[ ] at the sentence colloquy or otherwise raise[ ] the issue at the
sentencing hearing or through a post-sentence motion.” Commonwealth v.
D'Collanfield, 805 A.2d 1244, 1246 (Pa. Super. 2002) (citation omitted). A
failure to object during the plea colloquy or file a motion to withdraw the plea
within ten days of sentencing will result in waiver. See Commonwealth v.
Lincoln, 72 A.3d 606, 609–10 (Pa. Super. 2013). “The purpose of this waiver
rule is to allow the trial court to correct its error at the first opportunity, and,
in so doing, further judicial efficiency.” Commonwealth v. Monjaras-
Amaya, 163 A.3d 466, 469 (Pa. Super. 2017).
In Monjaras-Amaya, the appellant failed to challenge the validity of
his guilty plea during his plea colloquy, nor did he file a post-sentence motion
-2-
J-S23004-23
seeking to withdraw his plea. See id. Instead, Monjaras–Amaya raised the
claim in his Rule 1925(b) statement, at a point when the trial court was
without jurisdiction and could not grant relief. See id. This Court concluded
Monjaras-Amaya failed to preserve his claim before raising it in his Rule
1925(b) statement and, therefore, the issue was waived. See id.Like in Monjaras-Amaya, Chase did not object to the validity of his
guilty plea during his plea colloquy. Chase also failed to file a post-sentence
motion seeking to withdraw his plea. As such, the trial court was never given
the opportunity to correct the alleged errors with the plea. By raising the issue
for the first time in his Rule 1925(b), Chase failed to preserve his claim that
his guilty plea was not entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.
Therefore, we find the issue waived.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/29/2023
-3-