Com. v. Shaffer, L. ( 2021 )

J-A12043-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
LANCE ROSS SHAFFER :
:
Appellant : No. 1268 MDA 2020
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered September 28, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-14-CR-0001366-2018
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., STABILE, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED JULY 27, 2021
Lance Ross Shaffer (“Shaffer”) appeals from the Order dismissing his
Petition for Relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”).1
We affirm.
On February 4, 2019, Shaffer entered a guilty plea to one count each of
terroristic threats and criminal attempt – voluntary manslaughter.2 On March
7, 2019, the trial court sentenced Shaffer to five to ten years in prison for his
conviction of attempted voluntary manslaughter. Pursuant to a plea
agreement, the trial court imposed a consecutive prison term of six months
to one year for his conviction of terroristic threats.
____________________________________________
1 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
2 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2706(a)(1), 901(a)/2503.
J-A12043-21
On February 27, 2020, Shaffer timely filed a pro se PCRA Petition. The
PCRA court appointed counsel, who filed an Amended PCRA Petition and a
Second Amended PCRA Petition. On September 8, 2020, the Commonwealth
filed a Motion to dismiss Shaffer’s PCRA Petition without a hearing. On
September 25, 2020, after appropriate Notice pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907,
the PCRA court dismissed Shaffer’s Second Amended PCRA Petition without a
hearing. Thereafter, Shaffer filed the instant timely Notice of Appeal, followed
by a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement of matters
complained of on appeal.
Shaffer presents the following claim for our review: “Whether the plea
was unknowingly and unintelligently entered where the plea colloquy failed to
adduce a sufficient factual basis to support the plea of guilty to attempted
voluntary manslaughter?” Brief for Appellant at 5.
Shaffer claims that his guilty plea to attempted voluntary manslaughter
was not knowing and voluntary. Id. at 11. Shaffer acknowledges that his
written plea colloquy states that there must be a factual basis for his plea but
did not articulate “what he understood that factual basis to be.” Id. at 13.
Shaffer states that during the oral plea colloquy, the Commonwealth explained
the factual basis for the charge of terroristic threats, stating that Shaffer
dragged his girlfriend out of the car by the hair, put a gun to her head and
threatened to kill her. Id. at 13-14. For the charge of attempted voluntary
manslaughter, the Commonwealth stated that Shaffer had chased and shot at
-2-
J-A12043-21
the man who was with his girlfriend. Id. at 13. Shaffer asserts that, when
asked whether the factual basis was correct, he denied having an intent to kill
his girlfriend, and further denied shooting at her companion. Id. at 14.
According to Shaffer, his counsel then informed the court that “the allegation
that [] Shaffer shot at his girlfriend’s companion was merely something [that]
the Commonwealth would have attempted to establish had there been a trial.”
Id. Shaffer asserts that he had denied that he had the intent to kill anyone.
Id. Shaffer asserts that, “by disputing the only fact offered as evidence of his
intent to kill[,] he has raised a defense to the crime of [a]ttempted [v]oluntary
[m]anslaughter and invalidated his plea.” Id. at 15. On this basis, Shaffer
claims that his plea was unknowing and involuntary. See id.
As our Supreme Court has explained,
[u]pon reviewing an order in a PCRA matter, we must determine
whether the findings of the PCRA court are supported by the
record and whether the court’s legal conclusions are free from
error. The findings of the PCRA court and the evidence of record
are viewed in a light most favorable to the prevailing party. The
PCRA court’s credibility determinations, when supported by the
record, are binding; however, this court applies a de novo
standard of review to the PCRA court’s legal conclusions. We must
keep in mind that the petitioner has the burden of persuading this
Court that the PCRA court erred and that such error requires relief.
Finally, this Court may affirm a valid judgment or order for any
reason appearing of record.
Commonwealth v. Montalvo, 205 A.3d 274, 286 (Pa. 2019) (citations
omitted).
A guilty plea will be deemed valid if the record demonstrates that the
defendant had a full understanding of the nature and consequences of his plea
-3-
J-A12043-21
such that he knowingly and intelligently entered the plea of his own
accord. Commonwealth v. Rush, 909 A.2d 805, 808 (Pa. Super.
2006). The Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure mandate that pleas be
taken in open court and require the court to conduct an on-the-record colloquy
to ascertain whether a defendant is aware of his rights and the consequences
of his plea. Commonwealth v. Hodges, 789 A.2d 764, 765 (Pa. Super.
2002) (citing Pa.R.Crim.P. 590). Specifically, the court must affirmatively
demonstrate the defendant understands (1) the nature of the charges to which
he is pleading guilty; (2) the factual basis for the plea; (3) his right to trial by
jury; (4) the presumption of innocence; (5) the permissible ranges of
sentences and fines possible; and (6) that the judge is not bound by the terms
of the agreement unless he accepts the agreement. Commonwealth v.
Watson, 835 A.2d 786, 796-97 (Pa. Super. 2003). ”Before accepting a plea
of guilty, the trial court must satisfy itself that there is a factual basis for the
plea. A factual basis for the plea is universally required.” Commonwealth
v. Stenhouse, 788 A.2d 383, 384 (Pa. Super. 2001) (internal citations and
quotation marks omitted).
Additionally, “nothing in [Rule 590] would 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. This written colloquy would have
to be supplemented by some on-the-record oral examination.” Pa.R.Crim.P.
590 cmt.; see also Rush, 909 A.2d at 808 (concluding that the defendant
-4-
J-A12043-21
entered a knowing and voluntary guilty plea where he acknowledged in a
written colloquy that he understood his rights to trial by jury and presumption
of innocence, and he confirmed during the court’s oral examination that he
signed a written colloquy and understood its contents).
Shaffer challenges his guilty plea to the charge of attempted voluntary
manslaughter. The Crimes Code defines voluntary manslaughter as an
unjustified killing committed while the perpetrator was acting “under a sudden
and intense passion resulting from serious provocation by the victim.” 18
Pa.C.S.A. § 2503(a)(1). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that for
purposes of section 2503, “sudden and intense passion” encompasses
emotions such as anger, rage, sudden resentment, or terror that renders the
mind incapable of reason. Commonwealth v. Browdie, 671 A.2d 668 (Pa.
1996). Additionally, a person commits the crime of criminal attempt if, “with
intent to commit a specific crime, he does any act which constitutes a
substantial step toward the commission of that crime.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 901(a).
Our review discloses that Shaffer’s written guilty plea colloquy set forth
the elements of the crime of attempted voluntary manslaughter and terroristic
threats. Written Guilty Plea Colloquy, 2/4/19, at ¶ 6. When asked whether
he understood the elements of the charges, Shaffer handwrote, “Yes.” Id. At
the oral guilty plea colloquy, Shaffer indicated that he understood the nature
of the charges. N.T., 2/4/20, at 5. The Commonwealth stated on the record
the following factual bases for Shaffer’s guilty pleas:
-5-
J-A12043-21
[The Commonwealth]: … The two victims in the case, the woman
is [Shaffer’s] ex-girlfriend; the other individual is his neighbor. He
came upon them in a spot where [Shaffer] would have frequented
with his girlfriend. [Shaffer] pulled up behind. The male drove
away. [Shaffer] chased him in his vehicle. That vehicle went off
the side of the road. [Shaffer] got out of that vehicle, had a gun.
The male was hiding behind the rear driver’s [side] and he shot
through the car at that – at the male. So that would be the factual
basis for the attempted voluntary manslaughter, and he then took
his girlfriend, the female, out of the vehicle, had her on the
ground, had a gun pointed at her head, and then threatened to
kill her.
[The Court:] Is that a correct statement?
[Shaffer:] Some of it, yes.
[Defense counsel:] Your Honor, that is what the Commonwealth
would attempt to prove. I know that if we were to go to trial, the
issue of whether he shot at [the male] or not would have been an
issue. He certainly did not try to kill [the ex-girlfriend], which is
why the terroristic threats charge is there. Other than that, [the
Commonwealth’s] statement is accurate as to what the
Commonwealth would be proving.
[The Court:] So now that’s a correct statement?
[Shaffer:] Yes.
N.T., 2/4/20, at 5-6.3
Based upon our review of the record, we agree with the PCRA court that
Shaffer’s claim of an unknowing and involuntary plea to attempted voluntary
manslaughter lacks merit. See PCRA Court Opinion, 9/25/20, at 4. The
record clearly establishes that Shaffer was informed of the elements of the
____________________________________________
3 We note that at sentencing, the trial court offered Shaffer the opportunity to
make a statement on the record, and Shaffer declined.
-6-
J-A12043-21
charge of attempted voluntary manslaughter and the factual basis for that
charge. See id. Shaffer’s counsel indicated that at trial, Shaffer would have
disputed the Commonwealth’s evidence. See id. Nevertheless, Shaffer
knowingly and voluntarily tendered a guilty plea to attempted voluntary
manslaughter. See id. at 4-7. Consequently, we cannot grant Shaffer relief
on this claim. See Commonwealth v. Yeomans, 24 A.3d 1044, 1047 (Pa.
Super. 2011) (stating that “a plea of guilty will not be deemed invalid if the
circumstances surrounding the plea disclose that the defendant had a full
understanding of the nature and consequences of his plea and that he
knowingly and voluntarily decided to enter the plea.”) (citation omitted).
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 07/27/2021
-7-