Com. v. Saunders, J. ( 2021 )

J-S14019-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JAQWAN MILTEN SAUNDERS :
:
Appellant : No. 1480 MDA 2020
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 15, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-06-CR-0001591-2019
BEFORE: BOWES, J., DUBOW, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED JUNE 09, 2021
Appellant, Jaqwan Milten Saunders, appeals from the Judgment of
Sentence entered after he pleaded guilty to Possession with Intent to
Distribute (“PWID”) and Driving Under Suspension (“DUS”). Appellant assails
the trial court’s Order refusing to suppress certain evidence. After careful
review, we affirm.
On February 16, 2019, Reading Police Officers Timothy Morris and
Hector Marinez arrested Appellant after they found drugs in his vehicle and on
his person. On May 15, 2019, Appellant filed a pretrial Motion seeking to, inter
alia, suppress evidence derived from this arrest. The court held a hearing on
June 25, 2019. The court denied the Motion on August 12, 2019. Appellant
sought reconsideration on September 11, 2019, which the court denied on
September 23, 2019.
J-S14019-21
On October 15, 2020, Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea to PWID
and DUS. The court sentenced him to 12 to 36 months’ incarceration.
Appellant did not file post-sentence Motions. He timely filed a Notice of Appeal,
and both he and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellant presents the following issues for our review:
1. Whether an appellate court can review the denial of a motion
for suppression after the Appellant has plead guilty?
2. Whether the trial court erred in denying Appellant’s omnibus
pre-trial motion to suppress the evidence discovered where
Appellant’s consent was coerced, the search of the vehicle was
illegal, the search incident to arrest and strip search of Appellant
was illegal, and the arrest was unlawful?
Appellant’s Br. at 11.
In this appeal, Appellant seeks to relitigate the trial court’s denial of his
suppression motion. See id. at 22-38. He recognizes, however, that well-
established Pennsylvania case law bars such a challenge after the defendant
has pleaded guilty. Id. at 20. See Commonwealth v. Pantalion, 957 A.2d
1267, 1271 (Pa. Super. 2008) (an appellant waives right to challenge on direct
appeal all non-jurisdictional defects except legality of sentence and validity of
the plea); Commonwealth v. Perel, 107 A.3d 185, 197 n.14 (Pa. Super.
2014) (concluding that appellant waived challenge to court order denying
suppression motion by pleading guilty). Based on this case law, in its Rule
1925(a) Opinion, the trial court found that Appellant waived his challenge to
the suppression court’s ruling. Trial Ct. Op., 1/11/21, at 2.
-2-
J-S14019-21
To circumvent waiver, for the first time on appeal, Appellant argues that
“[w]hen improperly obtained physical evidence is the primary motivation for
a guilty plea, [the appellant] may challenge non-jurisdictional defect[s].”
Appellant’s Br. at 20. We do not reach the merits of Appellant’s argument,
however, because he waived it by failing to raise it in the court below.
It is well-settled that, in order to preserve an issue related to a guilty
plea, an appellant must either object at the plea colloquy, raise the issue at
the sentencing hearing, or raise the issue through a post-sentence motion.
Commonwealth v. Monjaras-Amaya, 163 A.3d 466, 468-69 (Pa. Super.
2017). See Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(A)(1), (B)(1)(a)(i); see also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a)
(“Issues not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the
first time on appeal.”).
The waiver rule allows the trial court to correct its error at the first
opportunity, and, in so doing, further judicial efficiency. “It is for the court
which accepted the plea to consider and correct, in the first instance, any error
which may have been committed. See Commonwealth v. Roberts, 352 A.2d
140, 141 (Pa. Super. 1975) (attacking guilty plea on direct appeal without
first filing petition to withdraw plea with trial court is procedural error resulting
in waiver).
Here, Appellant failed to raise this challenge during his plea colloquy,
sentencing, or in a post-sentence Motion seeking to withdraw his plea. Rather,
for the first time after filing his notice of appeal, Appellant argues that his
guilty plea was invalid. Accordingly, this issue is waived.
-3-
J-S14019-21
Judgment of Sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/9/2021
-4-