Opinion
J-S80017-16 No. 5 MDA 2016
12-30-2016
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. APRIL DEMANCHE Appellee
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order Dated November 30, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of York County
Criminal Division at No: CP-67-CR-0005999-2014 BEFORE: LAZARUS, STABILE, and RANSOM, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.:
The Commonwealth appeals from the November 30, 2015 order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of York County ("PCRA court"), which permitted Appellee April Demanche to withdraw her plea of nolo contendere and proceed to trial based on a recantation claim pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"), 42 Pa.C.S.A §§ 9541-46. Upon careful review, we affirm.
The facts and procedural history underlying this case are undisputed. Briefly, on April 23, 2015, Appellee pled no contest to two counts of endangering the welfare of children under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4304(a)(1) and was sentenced to consecutive five-year terms of probation. On August 21, 2015, Appellee filed the instant PCRA petition, alleging that, between July 5, 2015, and July 15, 2015, she discovered that two minor victims had recanted their allegations of abuse against Appellee. The PCRA court conducted a hearing, after which it granted Appellee PCRA relief based on after-discovered recantation evidence on November 30, 2015. The Commonwealth timely appealed to this Court. Following the Commonwealth's filing of a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal, the trial court issued a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion.
Generally, a defendant who pleads guilty waives all defects and defenses except those concerning the jurisdiction of the court, the legality of the sentence, and the validity of the guilty plea. See Commonwealth v. Pantalion , 957 A.2d 1267, 1271 (Pa. Super. 2008). A nolo contendere plea is treated the same as a guilty plea. Commonwealth v. Leidig , 850 A.2d 743, 745 (Pa. Super. 2004), aff'd , 956 A.2d 399 (Pa. 2008).
In Commonwealth v. Starr , 301 A.2d 592 (Pa. 1973), our Supreme Court determined that a court should allow the withdrawal of a guilty plea after sentencing to correct a manifest injustice to the defendant. Subsequently, the Court determined that any after-discovered evidence which would justify a new trial would also satisfy the requirements of Starr. Commonwealth v. Peoples , 319 A.2d 679, 681 (Pa. 1974). Specifically, the Court stated that "any after-discovered evidence which would justify a new trial would also entitle a defendant to withdraw his guilty plea." Id.
On appeal, the Commonwealth raises three issues for our review:
We have explained:
This Court examines PCRA appeals in the light most favorable to the prevailing party at the PCRA level. Our review is limited to the findings of the PCRA court and the evidence of record[.] Additionally, [w]e grant great deference to the factual findings of the PCRA court and will not disturb those findings unless they have no support in the record. In this respect, we will not disturb a PCRA court's ruling if it is supported by evidence of record and is free of legal error. However, we afford no deference to its legal conclusions. [W]here the petitioner raises questions of law, our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.Commonwealth v. Henkel , 90 A.3d 16, 20 (Pa. Super .2014) (citations and quotation marks omitted), appeal denied , 101 A.3d 785 (Pa. 2014).
I. Whether [Appellee] is ineligible for relief under the PCRA under Section 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2)(iv) as the purported victim recantations could have been discovered by going to trial and examining the victims at trial?Commonwealth's Brief at 4 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).
II. Whether the lower court erred in granting [Appellee's] PCRA petition to withdraw a no-contest Alford plea, based upon purported recantations of two of four juvenile victims?
III. Whether [the] PCRA court erred in permitting [Appellee] to withdraw her no-contest plea where the plea consisted of two counts involving a consolidated claim of four victims where only two victims recanted?
To obtain relief based upon newly-discovered evidence under the PCRA, a petitioner must establish that: (1) the evidence has been discovered after trial and it could not have been obtained at or prior to trial through reasonable diligence; (2) the evidence is not cumulative; (3) it is not being used solely to impeach credibility; and (4) it would likely compel a different verdict. Commonwealth. v. D'Amato , 856 A.2d 806, 823 (Pa. 2004) (citation and quotation marks omitted). In fact, the PCRA provides relief where a petitioner can prove "[t]he unavailability at the time of trial of exculpatory evidence that has subsequently become available and would have changed the outcome of the trial if it had been introduced." 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2)(vi).
North Carolina v. Alford , 400 U.S. 25 (1970). An Alford plea is a nolo contendere plea in which the defendant does not admit guilt but waives his trial and voluntarily, knowingly, and understandingly consents to the imposition of punishment by the trial court. Alford , 400 U.S. at 37.
After careful review of the record and the relevant case law, we conclude that the PCRA court accurately and thoroughly addressed the merits of the Commonwealth's claims. See PCRA Court Rule 1925(a) Opinion, 4/5/16, at 7-19. Accordingly, we affirm the PCRA court's November 30, 2015 order. We further direct that a copy of the PCRA court's April 5, 2016 Rule 1925(a) opinion be attached to any future filings in this case.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 12/30/2016
Image materials not available for display.