Com. v. Samuels, J. ( 2023 )

J-S33045-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JARRETT D. SAMUELS, JR. :
:
Appellant : No. 168 WDA 2023
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 12, 2023
In the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-43-CR-0000343-2022
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., McCAFFERY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED: October 5, 2023
Appellant, Jarrett D. Samuels, Jr., appeals from the judgment of
sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer County following
his negotiated guilty plea to the sole charge of aggravated assault, 18
Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(1). After a careful review, we affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows: Appellant was
charged with criminal attempt (first-degree murder), two counts of
aggravated assault, and recklessly endangering another person1 in connection
with the shooting of Tyreek Barnett. On October 11, 2022, Appellant, who
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 901(a), 2702(a)(1), 2702(a)(4), and 2705, respectively.
J-S33045-23
was represented by privately retained counsel, proceeded to a guilty plea
hearing.
During the hearing, guilty plea counsel indicated he explained
Appellant’s rights to him, and Appellant understood those rights. N.T.,
10/11/22, at 2-3. Guilty plea counsel confirmed Appellant executed a written
guilty plea. Id. at 10. The trial court advised Appellant that, if the
Commonwealth made a sentencing recommendation, and the trial court did
not accept the recommendation, Appellant would be permitted to withdraw
his guilty plea. Id. at 3. Appellant indicated he understood. Id. Appellant
also indicated he was not under the influence of any drugs, alcohol, or
medications. Id.
The Commonwealth informed the trial court that the parties had reached
an agreement whereby Appellant would plead guilty to one count of
aggravated assault under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(1), and in exchange, the
Commonwealth would nolle pros the remaining charges as well as recommend
a sentence of six years to twenty years in prison with credit for time served
from March 20, 2022, to the time of sentencing. Id. at 4. Appellant confirmed
his understanding of the plea agreement, and he confirmed that, aside from
this plea agreement, no one had promised him anything or threatened him in
any manner. Id. Appellant specifically confirmed he was satisfied with the
services of guilty plea counsel. Id. at 6.
-2-
J-S33045-23
Appellant indicated he understood that if he went to trial the
Commonwealth “would have to convince a jury of 12 persons unanimously
and beyond a reasonable doubt…that [Appellant] caused serious bodily injury
to another intentionally, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances
manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life[, which] in this
case [was that Appellant] shot somebody.” Id. Appellant confirmed he
understood he was pleading guilty to a “felony of the first degree[, which]
carries a maximum fine of $25,000 and a maximum of 20 years in a state
penitentiary.” Id.
The following relevant exchange then occurred:
[GUILTY PLEA COUNSEL]: [Appellant], do you admit that on or
about March 20th of 2022, while in the City of Sharon, County of
Mercer, you did intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly cause
serious bodily injury to the victim, Tyreke (phonetic spelling)
Barber [sic],[2] under circumstances manifesting extreme
indifference to the value of human life by shooting the victim in
his upper leg with a semi-automatic rifle?
[APPELLANT]: Yes.
THE COURT: Commonwealth satisfied?
[DISTRICT ATTORNEY]: Yes, Your Honor.
____________________________________________
2 As discussed infra, Appellant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
During the evidentiary hearing on his motion, Appellant acknowledged that
the victim’s name is “Tyreek Barnett.” N.T., 12/6/2, at 5-6. However, he
confirmed at the evidentiary hearing that, when he entered his guilty plea and
defense counsel referred to “Tyreke (phonetic spelling) Barber,” he
understood counsel to be referring to “Tyreek Barnett.” Id.
-3-
J-S33045-23
Id. at 7 (footnote added).3
Based on the aforementioned, the trial court indicated that “[Appellant]
appearing before [the trial] court with counsel, and voluntarily, knowingly,
and intelligently entering a plea of guilty to one count of Aggravated Assault,
causing serious bodily injury with a deadly weapon, said plea is accepted.”
Id. at 9. The trial court noted the charge was a felony of the first degree in
violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2701(a)(1). Id.
The trial court acknowledged the Commonwealth’s sentencing
recommendation of six years to twenty years in prison with credit for all time
served, and the trial court indicated that, in the event the trial court did not
accept the recommendation, Appellant would be permitted to withdraw his
guilty plea. Id. The trial court noted all remaining charges were nol prossed.
Id. Guilty plea counsel confirmed the guilty plea was “in [Appellant’s] best
interests.” Id. The trial court scheduled Appellant’s sentencing hearing for
November 9, 2022.
Prior to the sentencing hearing, on November 1, 2022, guilty plea
counsel filed a motion to withdraw his representation. Therein, counsel
explained that “[Appellant] notified [guilty plea counsel] [indicating] that he
desires to withdraw his guilty plea…and no longer wants the services of [guilty
____________________________________________
3 We note the record reveals there is video footage of the crime, as well as
still images, which depict Appellant as driving a vehicle and shooting the victim
with a rifle pointing out of the vehicle’s window. N.T., 11/10/22, at 23-24.
-4-
J-S33045-23
plea counsel, who was privately retained].” Motion to Withdraw
Representation, filed 11/1/22, at 1. Further, on or about November 2, 2022,
Appellant filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Therein, Appellant
relevantly indicated he desired to withdraw his guilty plea in order to “retain
[his] innocence,…retain his rights,…[and] to have more time to think and
analyze the circumstances [since he] feels [he] was pressured and forced by
counsel to do something [he] didn’t want to do[.]” Motion to Withdraw Guilty
Plea, filed 11/2/22, at 1.
On November 8, 2022, the trial court held a hearing to address guilty
plea counsel’s petition to withdraw. During the hearing, Appellant
acknowledged there was video footage of the crime, but he stated that it “was
not [him]” in the subject vehicle who shot the victim. N.T., 11/10/22, at 25.
He stated that “[a]nybody could have been in [his] vehicle that day.” Id.
Accordingly, at the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court granted
guilty plea counsel’s petition to withdraw as counsel and continued the matter
for the appointment of new defense counsel, as well as an evidentiary hearing
on Appellant’s presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea. By order
entered on November 9, 2022, the trial court appointed new counsel to
represent Appellant.
On December 6, 2022, Appellant, represented by new counsel,
proceeded to an evidentiary hearing on his presentence motion to withdraw
his guilty plea. Counsel confirmed he reviewed Appellant’s pro se motion, and
-5-
J-S33045-23
Appellant “would like to proceed with withdrawing his guilty plea.” N.T.,
12/6/22, at 3.
At the hearing, Appellant confirmed that, during the guilty plea colloquy,
he admitted he shot Mr. Barnett, and “this was an honest answer.” Id. at 6.
However, Appellant indicated he would like to raise the issue of self-defense.
Id. That is, Appellant testified he “was admitting to shooting [Mr. Barnett],
but [he was] saying [he] would have self-defense[.]” Id.
In support of his claim of self-defense, Appellant testified that, in 2014,
when he was in high school, Mr. Barnett, who was one of his classmates,
“flipped [him] out of [his] desk for no apparent reason.” Id. at 7. Appellant
indicated that over the last eight years Mr. Barnett attacked him on “Facebook
at wee hours in the morning” and sent him threatening texts. Id. at 8. He
noted that approximately one week before he shot Mr. Barnett, he read one
of Mr. Barnett’s Facebook posts wherein Mr. Barnett said he knew Appellant
had been with a certain female. Id. at 10. Appellant claimed Mr. Barnett
indicated in the Facebook post that “when he found [Appellant and the
woman] he was going to beat her ass and fuck [them] up, and you know,
even kill [them].” Id. Appellant testified Mr. Barnett made a similar Facebook
post one or two days before Appellant shot him. Id. Appellant admitted that,
aside from incidents occurring in 2014 while he and Mr. Barnett were seniors
in high school, no other physical altercations had occurred prior to Appellant
shooting Mr. Barnett on March 20, 2022. Id. at 12.
-6-
J-S33045-23
Regarding the incidents occurring on March 20, 2022, Appellant testified
one of his female friends called and asked him to give her a ride to the hospital.
Id. at 13. Appellant agreed and drove to her apartment building. Id. After
Appellant stopped his vehicle in front of the woman’s apartment, “[Mr.
Barnett] bolted out the door [of the residence]…[and] started approaching
[Appellant’s] car[.]” Id. Appellant testified Mr. Barnett threatened to “beat
his ass” and told him to get out of the car. Id. at 14. Appellant admitted he
“brandished” his gun so that Mr. Barnett could see it, and, since Mr. Barnett
would not stop making verbal threats, move away from Appellant’s car, or
stop “moving his hands in ways that were…confusing to [Appellant],”
Appellant “fired one shot into his leg, upper leg.” Id. Appellant admitted he
was not sure whether Mr. Barnett was armed; however, he “thought [he saw]
a silver handle of a gun” on Mr. Barnett. Id. at 15. Appellant stated he was
in fear for his life at the time, so he “took the first precaution,” which was to
shoot Mr. Barnett. Id.
On cross-examination, when shown video footage from a camera that
recorded the shooting, Appellant admitted he was sitting in his vehicle, which
was in the middle of the street, when he shot Mr. Barnett. Id. at 17. Appellant
also admitted the video depicts him shooting Mr. Barnett with “a long rifle out
the window.” Id. at 18. Appellant admitted the rifle was “an AR-15 assault
rifle.” Id. at 20. Appellant admitted the video showed him stopping his
vehicle with the barrel of the rifle sticking out of the window, moving the
-7-
J-S33045-23
vehicle forward five or six feet with the barrel of the rifle still out, stopping the
vehicle, and shooting Mr. Barnett, who was “still in the grass of the front yard
of the apartment building.” Id. at 28-29, 45. Appellant admitted Mr. Barnett
never made it out of the yard before Appellant shot him. Id. at 29.
Appellant admitted the video does not depict any evidence that Mr.
Barnett was in possession of a weapon; however, Appellant testified he
thought he saw a gun in Mr. Barnett’s waistband when Mr. Barnett exited the
apartment’s door, which was out of view of the camera. Id. at 20. Appellant
clarified he thought he saw the victim with a gun in his waistband before
Appellant stopped his vehicle. Id. at 35, 45. When asked by the trial court
why he did not keep driving when he thought he saw Mr. Barnett with a gun
before he stopped his car, Appellant responded, “everything was just going so
fast, and that’s when [his female friend] literally got brought out the door.”
Id. at 45.
Appellant admitted Mr. Barnett never pointed any gun at Appellant. Id.
at 26. Appellant specifically admitted that, when he fired his rifle, Mr. Barnett
did not have a gun or any other weapon in either of his hands. Id. at 21-22.
Appellant also admitted the video depicts him driving away immediately after
he shot Mr. Barnett, and he admitted he did not call the police after he shot
Mr. Barnett. Id. at 21-22, 42.
Appellant admitted that, at the time of the shooting, Mr. Barnett was
dating one of Appellant’s ex-girlfriends; however, Appellant testified he had
-8-
J-S33045-23
“moved on.” Id. at 22. He denied that when he shot Mr. Barnett in the leg
he was aiming for his genitals. Id. When asked by the Commonwealth “why
[Appellant] believe[d] it was necessary in self-defense to shoot [Mr. Barnett]
with an AR-15 rifle when he had no weapon in his hand[,]” Appellant replied
“[Mr. Barnett] could have pulled the gun and then boom, blew [Appellant’s]
brains out.” Id. at 31-32.
Appellant testified that, before he entered his guilty plea, he advised his
guilty plea counsel that he had a claim of self-defense. Id. at 36. He testified
he did not tell the trial court during the guilty plea colloquy that he had a claim
of self-defense because guilty plea counsel pressured him not to do so. Id. at
37. Appellant admitted one of the reasons he entered a guilty plea was to
avoid a harsh sentence should he be convicted by a jury. Id. at 40.
At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied
Appellant’s presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Specifically, the
trial court indicated it did “not credit some of [Appellant’s] testimony.” Id. at
56. However, the trial court further indicated that, even if it “believed every
word he said,” Appellant’s testimony, as a matter of law, would not establish
the elements for self-defense. Id. Thus, the trial court concluded Appellant
did not have a plausible claim of innocence based on self-defense. Id.
On January 12, 2023, the trial court imposed the agreed upon sentence
of six years to twenty years in prison with credit for time served. Appellant
-9-
J-S33045-23
filed a timely, counseled notice of appeal. All Pa.R.A.P. 1925 requirements
have been met.
On appeal, Appellant sets forth the following issue in his “Statement of
Questions Involved” (verbatim):
1. Whether the trial court erred in denying [Appellant’s] motion
to withdraw his guilty plea prior to sentencing?
Appellant’s Brief at 4. We review the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s
presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea for abuse of
discretion. Commonwealth v. Baez, 169 A.3d 35, 39 (Pa.Super.
2017); Commonwealth v. Islas, 156 A.3d 1185, 1187 (Pa.Super. 2017).
As this Court recently held:
Where a defendant requests to withdraw his guilty plea
before he is sentenced, the trial court has discretion to grant the
withdrawal and that discretion is to be liberally exercised to permit
withdrawal of the plea if two conditions are present: 1) the
defendant demonstrates a fair and just reason for withdrawing the
plea and 2) it is not shown that withdrawal of the plea would cause
substantial prejudice to the Commonwealth. Commonwealth v.
Carrasquillo, 631 Pa. 692, 115 A.3d 1284, 1291-92
(2015); Baez, 169 A.3d at 39; Islas, 156 A.3d at 1188; see
also Pa.R.Crim.P. 591(A) (“At any time before the imposition of
sentence, the court may, in its discretion, permit, upon motion of
the defendant,…the withdrawal of a plea of guilty or nolo
contendere and the substitution of a plea of not guilty”)[.]
Commonwealth v. Jamison, 284 A.3d 501, 505 (Pa.Super. 2022).
In the case sub judice, since there was no showing that withdrawal of
Appellant’s guilty plea would have prejudiced the Commonwealth, the sole
issue with respect to Appellant’s presentence motion to withdraw his guilty
- 10 -
J-S33045-23
plea is whether Appellant satisfied the requirement that he demonstrate a fair
and just reason for withdrawing the plea.
Appellant argues he demonstrated a fair and just reason because he
raised a plausible claim of innocence. Specifically, Appellant contends he
acted in self-defense when he shot Mr. Barnett.
A plausible claim of innocence, supported by some facts or
evidence in the record, constitutes a fair and just reason for
allowing presentence withdrawal of a guilty plea. Islas, 156 A.3d
at 1191-92. Where, however, the defendant merely makes a bare
assertion that he is innocent without any proffer of any supporting
basis for that claim, the trial court in its discretion may deny
withdrawal on the ground that the defendant has not shown a fair
and just reason for withdrawal of the plea. Commonwealth v.
Norton, 650 Pa. 569, 201 A.3d 112, 120-23 (2019);
Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 632 Pa. 3, 116 A.3d 1103, 1105,
1107 (2015); Baez, 169 A.3d at 39-41.
Jamison, 284 A.3d at 505 (some citations omitted). See Carrasquillo,
supra (holding a fair and just reason exists where the defendant makes a
claim of innocence that is plausible).
“Stated more broadly, the proper inquiry on consideration
of such a withdrawal motion is whether the accused has made
some colorable demonstration, under the circumstances, such
that permitting withdrawal of the plea would promote fairness and
justice.” Norton, supra, 201 A.3d at 120-21[.] “[T]rial courts
have discretion to assess the plausibility of claims of innocence.”
Id. at 121.
We review that exercise of discretion as follows:
When a [trial] court comes to a conclusion
through the exercise of its discretion, there is a heavy
burden [on the appellant] to show that this discretion
has been abused. An appellant cannot meet this
burden by simply persuading an appellate court that
it may have reached a different conclusion than that
reached by the trial court; rather, to overcome this
- 11 -
J-S33045-23
heavy burden, the appellant must demonstrate that
the trial court actually abused its discretionary power.
An abuse of discretion will not be found based on a
mere error of judgment, but rather exists where the
[trial] court has reached a conclusion which overrides
or misapplies the law, or where the judgment
exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of
partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will. Absent an abuse
of that discretion, an appellate court should not
disturb a trial court’s ruling.
***
[I]t is important that appellate courts honor trial
court’s discretion in these matters, as trial courts are
in the unique position to assess the credibility of
claims of innocence and measure, under the
circumstances, whether defendants have made
sincere and colorable claims that permitting
withdrawal of their pleas would promote fairness and
justice.
Norton, supra, 201 A.3d at 120, 121 (citations omitted).
The trial court’s discretion, however, is not unfettered.
“[T]he term ‘discretion’ imports the exercise of judgment, wisdom
and skill so as to reach a dispassionate conclusion, within the
framework of the law, and is not exercised for the purpose of
giving effect to the will of the judge.” Id. at 121[.] The trial court
must be mindful that the law requires trial courts to grant
presentence plea withdrawal motions liberally and make credibility
determinations supported by the record. Id. The trial courts in
exercising their discretion must recognize that before judgment,
the courts should show solicitude for a defendant who wishes to
undo a waiver of all constitutional rights that surround the right
to trial—perhaps the most devastating waiver possible under our
constitution. Finally, this Court must not substitute its judgment
for that of the trial court; rather, we must discern whether the
trial court acted within its permissible discretion. Norton, supra,
201 A.3d at 121.
Commonwealth v. Garcia, 280 A.3d 1019, 1023-23 (Pa.Super. 2022) (some
quotation marks and quotations omitted).
- 12 -
J-S33045-23
Here, in explaining the reasons it denied Appellant’s presentence motion
to withdraw his guilty plea, the trial court relevantly indicated the following:
In the present case, [Appellant] argues the [trial] court
committed an error of law in denying [Appellant’s] motion to
withdraw his guilty plea prior to sentencing. “A defendant is
bound by the statements which he makes during his plea
colloquy[,]…a defendant ‘may not assert grounds for withdrawing
the plea that contradict statements made when he pled guilty,’
and he may not recant the representations he made in court when
he entered his guilty plea.” [Commonwealth v. Jabbie, 200 A.3d
500, 506 (Pa.Super. 2018) (citations omitted).]
At the [guilty plea] hearing on October 11, 2022, [Appellant]
agreed he intentionally, knowingly, and recklessly caused bodily
injury to the victim under circumstances manifesting extreme
indifference to the value of human life by shooting the victim in
the upper leg with a semi-automatic rifle without any mention of
self-defense. [N.T., 10/11/22, at 7.] [During the November 10,
2022, hearing regarding privately retained counsel’s petition to
withdraw his representation, Appellant contradicted his
statements, which he made at the guilty plea hearing.
Specifically, Appellant] proclaimed his innocence but made no
assertion of self-defense. [Rather,] at the November 10, 2022,
hearing, [pointing to the video footage of the crime,] [Appellant]
proclaimed his innocence by stating “that’s not me” and
“[a]nybody could have been in that vehicle that day[.]” [N.T.,
11/10/22, at 25.] [Appellant] did not assert self-defense; he
denied all involvement [at the November 10, 2022, hearing]….At
the [evidentiary] hearing [regarding his motion to withdraw his
guilty plea] on December 6, 2022, [Appellant] asserted a claim of
self-defense.
[At the December 6, 2022, hearing,] on direct examination,
[Appellant] first stated the victim verbally threatened him, but he
remained unsure of whether the victim brandished a weapon.
Next, [Appellant] stated he was sure he saw the victim holding
something silver but wasn’t sure if he saw a weapon or not. Next,
[Appellant] stated he thought he saw the silver handle of a gun.
On cross-examination, [Appellant] stated he was certain the
victim brandished something. Next, [Appellant] stated the victim
showed him a gun in his waistband, but he claimed all actions
taken by the victim occurred prior to the victim entering camera
- 13 -
J-S33045-23
view. [Appellant] then stated the victim was not brandishing
anything when [Appellant] shot the victim.
Under Carrasquillo, supra, [Appellant] has failed to
demonstrate a fair and just reason for withdrawing the plea. The
video [footage] on record shows [Appellant] driving towards the
victim, who was on foot, with the barrel of his rifle already out the
window, stopping, repositioning the vehicle for a better angle,
aiming a rifle out the window, shooting the victim, and driving
away. [Appellant] does not dispute the contents of the video.
Thus, [Appellant] has failed to articulate a colorable self-defense
claim or demonstrate any alternative fair and just reason for
withdrawing the plea.
In order to sustain a claim of self-defense, an individual
must prove the following: “(1) reasonably believed that force was
necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily
injury; (2) was free from fault in provoking the use of force against
him; and (3) did not violate any duty to retreat.”
[Commonwealth v. Miller, 172 A.3d 632, 640 (Pa.Super. 2017)
(citation omitted).] The record contains a video of [Appellant] in
his car approaching the victim, parking in the middle of the street,
pointing a rifle out the driver’s side window of the vehicle, and
shooting the victim. [Appellant] has made admissions of his
involvement in the shooting and to the accuracy of the video
[during the guilty plea hearing].
Under the first prong of the test established in Miller,
[Appellant] has failed to provide any evidence to support a claim
of reasonable belief that force was necessary to protect himself
against death or serious bodily injury. During every moment of
the video, [Appellant] was in his car in the middle of the street
with nothing to impede or encumber his escape and the victim
was on foot. [Appellant] could have simply driven away from the
scene to avoid any potential risk of death or serious bodily injury
from the victim.
Under the second prong of the test established in Miller,
[Appellant] has failed to provide any evidence to support a claim
that [Appellant] was free from fault in provoking the use of force
against him. The video provides a clear view of the incident for
the entire duration of this incident and establishes [Appellant]
approached the victim without any present provocation, parked
his vehicle in the middle of the road (where [Appellant] had clear
sight of the victim), aimed a rifle, and shot the victim. [Appellant]
was the aggressor at all times during the incident.
- 14 -
J-S33045-23
Under the third prong of the test established in Miller,
[Appellant] has failed to provide any evidence to support a claim
that [Appellant] fulfilled a duty to retreat. As stated above,
[Appellant] was in his car in the middle of the street with nothing
to impede or encumber his escape. The records shows no
evidence whatsoever demonstrating [Appellant] made any
attempt to retreat. The record shows [Appellant] was the
antagonist at all times and failed to fulfill the duty to retreat
requisite for the survival of a self-defense claim.
***
[Appellant] has failed to assert a plausible claim of
innocence or supporting facts or evidence which may establish a
fair and just reason for the allowance of presentence withdrawal
of his guilty plea. [Appellant] has failed to provide any facts or
evidence whatsoever to support his claim and makes only a barren
claim lacking any substantiation. Due to [Appellant’s] failure to
provide any supporting basis of his innocence claim, the [trial]
court was within its authority to deny withdrawal on the grounds
of a defendant’s failure to establish a fair and just reason for
withdrawal of a plea. Thus, [his] argument holds no merit.
Trial Court Opinion, filed 3/8/23 (footnotes omitted).4
We find no abuse of discretion. Norton, supra. As the trial court noted,
Appellant admitted during the October 11, 2022, guilty plea hearing that he
“intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly” shot the victim with a semi-automatic
rifle. N.T., 10/11/22, at 7. He is bound by these statements and cannot now
assert challenges to his plea that contradict these statements. See Jamison,
supra.
Further, in assessing the plausibility of Appellant’s claim of innocence
based on self-defense, the trial court properly considered the strength of the
____________________________________________
4 We note the trial court opinion is unpaginated.
- 15 -
J-S33045-23
Commonwealth’s evidence (including video footage and still photographs of
the crime) in relation to the nature of Appellant’s claim (consisting solely of
Appellant’s testimony, which the trial court found contradictory and incredible,
in part, and, in any event, even if wholly believed, would not meet establish
self-defense as a matter of law). See Garcia, 280 A.3d at 1027; Islas, 156
A.3d at 1190.
Additionally, in considering the plausibility of Appellant’s claim of
innocence, the trial court properly considered the timing of Appellant raising
the claim of self-defense. See id. Specifically, after Appellant admitted he
was the shooter during the October 11, 2022, guilty plea hearing, he then
proclaimed he was not the shooter during the November 10, 2022, hearing.
Thereafter, despite having several opportunities to do so, Appellant raised the
claim of innocence based on self-defense during the December 6, 2022,
evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, considering the totality of the circumstances,
the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding Appellant’s claim of
self-defense was not a fair and just reason for presentence withdrawal of
Appellant’s guilty plea. See id.For all of the foregoing reasons, we affirm.
Affirmed.
- 16 -
J-S33045-23
10/5/2023
- 17 -