From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Pines

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
May 23, 2017
J-S29010-17 (Pa. Super. Ct. May. 23, 2017)

Opinion

J-S29010-17 No. 2916 EDA 2016

05-23-2017

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. GEORGE PINES Appellant


NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 19, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0003937-2015 BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., SOLANO, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, J.:

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

George Pines appeals from the judgment of sentence, imposed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, after he entered a negotiated guilty plea to murder and related charges. On appeal, Pines claims that he did not enter his guilty plea knowingly, intelligently and/or voluntarily, and thus, it is invalid. After careful review, we affirm.

On July 19, 2016, Pines entered into a negotiated guilty plea to murder, robbery and two counts of aggravated assault. Pines was sentenced in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement to an aggregate term of 27½ to 55 years' imprisonment. On July 24, 2016, Pines filed a post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which the trial court denied following an evidentiary hearing. Pines timely appealed, and pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), he filed a court-ordered concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. On appeal, Pines raises the following question for review: "Did the trial court err when it denied [Pines'] motion to withdraw [his] guilty plea following the evidentiary hearing?" Brief of Appellant, at 4.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(c).

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702.

It is well settled that when a defendant has entered a negotiated guilty plea, his "plea . . . amounts to a waiver of all defects and defenses except those concerning the jurisdiction of the court, the legality of the sentence, and the validity of the guilty plea." Commonwealth v. Reichle , 589 A.2d 1140, 1141 (Pa. Super. 1991). Here, Pines claims he was unprepared to discuss any plea negotiations with trial counsel in the absence of various discovery materials. However, the record belies this claim where it is apparent that there was a factual basis for Pines' guilty plea. N.T. Guilty Plea Hearing, 7/19/16, at 2-25. Moreover, Pines' written and oral colloquies demonstrate he entered his guilty plea knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily. N.T. Guilty Plea Hearing, 7/19/16, at 56-57 ("Knowing everything now that I have just explained to you about how you have the right to continue with your jury trial, do you still want to give up that right and to plead guilty? Yes."); Written Guilty Plea Colloquy, 7/19/16. See Commonwealth v. Reid , 117 A.3d 777, 783 (Pa. Super. 2015) (entry of negotiated plea is strong indicator of voluntariness of plea; law does not require that defendant be pleased with outcome of decision to entered guilty plea, but that decision was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made).

Pines avers he did not have access to various medical reports and "75-48" documents prepared by police officers involved in his case. N.T. Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea Hearing, 8/17/16, at 4-5. However, the record indicates, "voluminous medical records" and "every single document that was generated by police, including multiple [75-48 documents] were passed in discovery." N.T. Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea Hearing, 8/17/2016, at 16, 18.

Upon review of the plea/sentencing transcript, the written plea colloquy, Pines' brief, the relevant law and the opinion of the Honorable Rose Marie Defino-Nastasi, we find that the trial court's well-reasoned decision comprehensively and correctly disposes of Pines' issue on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm based on Judge Defino-Nastasi's decision. Counsel is directed to attach a copy of that opinion in the event of further proceedings in this matter.

See N.T. Guilty Plea Hearing, 6/19/16, at 26-57, 68-73.

The Commonwealth did not file a brief in this matter. --------

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 5/23/2017

Image materials not available for display.


Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Pines

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
May 23, 2017
J-S29010-17 (Pa. Super. Ct. May. 23, 2017)
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Pines

Case Details

Full title:COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. GEORGE PINES Appellant

Court:SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: May 23, 2017

Citations

J-S29010-17 (Pa. Super. Ct. May. 23, 2017)