Opinion
J-S79038-16 No. 140 EDA 2016
01-19-2017
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. MANUEL COLLAZO, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 27, 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County, Criminal Division, No(s): CP-48-CR-0003539-2014 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., MOULTON and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.:
Manuel Collazo ("Collazo") appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed following his guilty plea to aggravated assault and unlawful possession of a firearm. We affirm.
The trial court aptly summarized the history underlying the instant appeal, which we adopt as though fully restated herein. See Trial Court Opinion, 2/10/16, at 1-5.
Briefly, as the unarmed victim was fleeing, Collazo shot the victim in the back. On March 27, 2015, Collazo tendered a negotiated guilty plea to the above-described charges. As a result of the plea, other related charges were withdrawn, including a charge of attempted murder. Following written and oral colloquies, the trial court sentenced Collazo in accordance with his negotiated plea. "The negotiations were that Collazo was to be sentenced at the very bottom of the standard ranges[,] and the sentences were to run consecutive to each other (60 + 42 = 102 months)." Trial Court Opinion, 2/10/15, at 2. Thus, the trial court sentenced Collazo to an aggregate prison term of 8½ to 20 years.
Collazo did not timely file a post-sentence motion. However, on April 14, 2015, Collazo filed a Petition for Permission to File Post-Sentence Motions Nunc Pro Tunc. In his Petition, Collazo claimed that the prior record used to negotiate his sentence was incorrect. In the alternative, Collazo sought to withdraw his guilty plea. At an April 24, 2015 hearing, Collazo indicated that he did not wish to withdraw his plea. However, Collazo's counsel sought a continuance, as Collazo was not prepared to make a record on the post-sentence Motion, and was uncertain as to whether to seek post-sentence relief. Notwithstanding, that same date, the trial court expressly granted Collazo's Petition for Leave to File Post-Sentence Motions Nunc Pro Tunc. Trial Court Order, 4/24/16.
Several days later, the trial court received information from the Probation Department indicating that Collazo's prior record score was correct, but that Collazo's counsel had negotiated a lower offense gravity score. As a result, the applicable guidelines recommended a longer sentence than what was negotiated and imposed. Ultimately, at a hearing on December 4, 2015, Collazo presented no evidence in support of his Post- Sentence Motion. Rather, Collazo argued that the victim's wound was not serious, and that he wanted a lesser sentence than the sentence negotiated by counsel.
On December 7, 2015, the trial court denied Collazo's Post-Sentence Motion. On January 5, 2016, Collazo filed the instant appeal of his judgment of sentence, followed by a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement of matters complained of on appeal.
Collazo presents the following claims for our review:
1. DID THE [TRIAL] COURT ERR IN DENYING DEFENSE COUNSEL'S REQUEST FOR A CONTINUANCE?Brief for Appellant at 8 (unnumbered).
2. DID THE [TRIAL] COURT ERR IN DENYING [COLLAZO'S] NUNC PRO TUNC POST[-]TRIAL MOTION?
3. WAS THE SENTENCE EXCESSIVE BECA[US]E IT WAS INCONSISTENT WITH [THE] SENTENCING GUIDELINE[S], AND [THE SENTENCING COURT FAILED] TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE SENTENCING FACTORS[,] INCLUDING [THE] REHABILITATIVE NEEDS OF [COLLAZO], PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC, AND GRAVITY OF THE OFFENSE?
4. DID THE [TRIAL] COURT ERR IN DENYING [COLLAZO'S] REQUEST TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA AND THEN SENTENCING HIM UNDER THE INCORRECT CRIMINAL CODE?
Although Collazo raises four claims, he combines them into two claims in the Argument section of his brief. In his first section, Collazo sets forth the standard of review of a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Id. at 11-12 (unnumbered). Thereafter, Collazo appears to challenge his guilty pleas as unknowing, claiming that "[h]e did not know that by pleading guilty[,] he would be sentenced with a prior record score of 3." Id. at 12 (unnumbered). Collazo also argues that the trial court failed to take into consideration his age, position in the community and rehabilitative needs. Id.
In his second section, Collazo claims that the trial court erred in denying his request to withdraw his guilty plea. Id. Collazo asserts that he should be permitted to withdraw his plea, because "no one was ever able to tell [Collazo] that he had a significant prior record." Id.
As a general rule, the entry of a guilty plea constitutes a waiver of all defects and defenses except lack of jurisdiction, invalidity of the plea, and legality of the sentence. Commonwealth v. Main , 6 A.3d 1026, 1028 (Pa. Super. 2010). There is no absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea, and the decision as to whether to allow a defendant to do so is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. Commonwealth v. Muhammad , 794 A.2d 378, 382 (Pa. Super. 2002). After sentencing, "a showing of prejudice on the order of manifest injustice" is required before withdrawal is properly justified. Commonwealth v. Shaffer , 446 A.2d 591, 593 (Pa. 1982) (citation omitted). "[M]anifest injustice occurs when a plea is not tendered knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily, and understandingly." Commonwealth v. Gunter , 771 A.2d 767, 771 (Pa. 2001).
In determining whether a plea is valid, the court must examine the totality of the circumstances surrounding the plea. Commonwealth v. Broaden , 980 A.2d 124, 129 (Pa. Super. 2009). Further, post-sentence motions for withdrawal are subject to higher scrutiny, since courts strive to discourage the entry of guilty pleas as sentencing-testing devices. Commonwealth v. Kelly , 5 A.3d 370, 377 (Pa. Super. 2010).
In its Opinion, the trial court addressed Collazo's assertions, and concluded that they lack merit, and/or are waived. See Trial Court Opinion, 2/10/16, at 6-8. We agree with the sound reasoning of the trial court, as set forth in its Opinion, and affirm its resolution of Collazo's claims on this basis. See id.; see also id. at 4-5 (whereupon the trial court, based upon information from the Chief Adult Probation Officer, concluded that the correct prior record score had been applied, but also recognizing that a lesser offense gravity score had been applied, benefitting Collazo). We additionally note the following.
Collazo baldly claims that at sentencing, the trial court improperly failed to take into consideration his age, rehabilitative needs, and position in the community. Brief for Appellant at 12 (unnumbered). This claim challenges the discretionary aspects of Collazo's sentence. However,
[w]here the plea agreement contains a negotiated sentence which is accepted and imposed by the sentencing court, there is no authority to permit a challenge to the discretionary aspects of that sentence. "If either party to a negotiated plea agreement believed the other side could, at any time following entry of sentence, approach the judge and have the sentence unilaterally altered, neither the Commonwealth nor any defendant would be willing to enter into such an agreement." Permitting a discretionary appeal following the entry of a negotiated plea[ ]
would undermine the designs and goals of plea bargaining, and "would make a sham of the negotiated plea process[.]"Commonwealth v. Reichle , 589 A.2d 1140, 1141 (Pa. Super. 1991) (citations omitted); accord Commonwealth v. Baney , 860 A.2d 127, 131 (Pa. Super. 2004). As the trial court imposed the agreed-upon sentence, Collazo cannot now challenge the discretionary aspects of that sentence. He received exactly what he bargained for.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 1/19/2017
Image materials not available for display.