Com. v. Chin, A. ( 2021 )

J-S18013-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
ANDRE CHIN :
:
Appellant : No. 880 EDA 2020
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 21, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Criminal Division
at No(s): CP-46-CR-0007662-2019
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., McCAFFERY, J., and COLINS, J.*
CONCURRING STATEMENT BY McCAFFERY, J.: FILED JULY 13, 2021
I join the Majority’s analysis and agree that affirmance is proper
pursuant to Commonwealth v. Lopez, 248 A.3d 589 (Pa. Super. 2021) (en
banc).
I write separately to emphasize Appellant’s sole sentence, the $25 fine,
was the result of a plea negotiation, accepted by Appellant. The
Commonwealth initially charged Appellant with possession of a small amount
of marijuana,1 a misdemeanor. Information, 2/20/20. However, as defense
counsel explained at the plea hearing, the Commonwealth agreed to amend
the charge to the summary offense of careless driving2 in exchange for the
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(31).
2 75 Pa.C.S. § 3714(a).
J-S18013-21
associated penalty. N.T., 2/21/20, at 5. Appellant received the benefit of a
lesser graded charge and acknowledged that if he had chosen not to accept
the plea offer, the Commonwealth could have proceeded on the higher graded
offense. Id. Furthermore, Appellant affirmed that no one had forced,
threatened, or coerced him into entering the plea. N.T. at 5.
“We have recognized the importance of the plea bargaining process as
a significant part of the criminal justice system.” Commonwealth v. Byrne,
833 A.2d 729, 735 (Pa. Super. 2003). If we allow a defendant to avoid a
“specific term negotiated as part of [a plea agreement,] it ‘would undermine
the designs and goals of plea bargaining,’ and ‘would make a sham of the
negotiated plea process.’” Id. (citations omitted).
I find further support for affirming the judgment of sentence in these
principles. Additionally, Appellant’s acceptance of the $25 fine — ultimately
imposed by the trial court — served to waive any appellate claim that he was
unable to afford to pay the fine.3
3 Additionally, I note defense counsel’s acknowledgment, at the plea hearing,
that a careless driving conviction “carries with it” a $25 fine. N.T. at 4. The
Motor Vehicle Code imposes a mandatory $25 fine for a summary offense
violation. 75 Pa.C.S. § 6502(a) (“Every person convicted of a summary
offense for a violation of any of the provisions of this title for which another
penalty is not provided shall be sentenced to pay a fine of $25.”).
Appellant’s brief, however, does not address the implications of this
sentencing provision on his claim.
-2-