Opinion
J-S41014-14 No. 2013 EDA 2013
07-17-2014
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. TAHARKA K. SENGHOR, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 4, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-48-CR-0000510-2013
BEFORE: BOWES, DONOHUE, and MUNDY, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.:
Taharka K. Senghor appeals from his June 4, 2013 judgment of sentence imposed pursuant to a negotiated guilty plea to robbery. We affirm.
From the trial court's recitation of the facts at the plea hearing and sentencing, we glean the following. On June 4, 2013, in exchange for a guilty plea to robbery and an agreed-upon sentence of four to eight years imprisonment followed by two years probation, the Commonwealth withdrew twenty-four additional charges. The charges arose on December 7, 2012, when Appellant, armed with a gun, entered a residence on Wilkes-Barre Street with a cohort, threatened the occupants, and removed personal property. N.T., 6/4/13, at 4.
On June 13, 2013, appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support thereof, in which he recited that Appellant contacted him on June 11, 2013, and requested that he file a motion for reconsideration of his sentence. Counsel represented to the court that he had no legal or factual basis to file such a motion as the plea was negotiated. The court granted counsel's withdrawal request on June 14, 2013, "upon perfection of appeal, if any," but subsequently entered an order on June 26, 2013, denying any post-sentence requests, ordering that Appellant would proceed pro se on appeal, and permitting counsel to withdraw. On July 12, 2013, Victor E. Scomillio, Esquire, filed an appeal on Appellant's behalf and a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
This Court remanded the matter on September 24, 2013, for a hearing pursuant to Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998). Following the hearing, the court appointed new counsel to represent Appellant on his direct appeal. Due to a conflict of interest, the trial court vacated that appointment on October 18, 2013, and substitute counsel was appointed. Appellant presents two issues on appeal, although in his brief he argues them as one:
1. Whether the Court erred in denying Appellant's Post-Sentence Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence?Appellant's brief at 3.
2. Whether the Court erred in entering a sentence that was excessive?
Appellant alleges that the sentence imposed is manifestly excessive as it fails to "call for confinement that is consistent with the protection of the public, the gravity of the offense as it relates to the impact on the life of the victim and the community, and the rehabilitative needs of the Appellant." Id. at 9. Furthermore, he claims that the trial court failed to state any reason for imposing its sentence. He recognizes that this is a challenge to the discretionary aspects of his sentence, and that he is not entitled to review as of right, but maintains that he has complied with the prerequisites for a discretionary sentencing claim by filing a timely notice of appeal, preserving the issue in a post-sentence motion, and including a Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement in his brief.
The Commonwealth counters that Appellant cannot challenge the discretionary aspects of a sentence imposed pursuant to a negotiated guilty plea, as was the case herein. Commonwealth v. Baney, 860 A.2d 127, 131 (Pa.Super. 2004); Commonwealth v. Byrne, 833 A.2d 729, 735 (Pa.Super. 2003). It is undisputed that Appellant pled guilty to robbery in return for withdrawal of numerous other charges. The Commonwealth and Appellant bargained for a particular sentence. Prior to pleading guilty, and after a full colloquy, Appellant agreed to a sentence of four to eight years imprisonment followed by two years probation. The trial court accepted the guilty plea and imposed the agreed-upon sentence. Appellant does not claim that the plea was involuntary, unknowing, and unintelligent.
The court noted that the sentence fell within the standard range of forty-eight to sixty months imprisonment for robbery, a first-degree felony, involving use of a deadly weapon. The statutory maximum is twenty years imprisonment.
It is a well-established principle in this Commonwealth that there is a limited right of appeal following the entry of a negotiated guilty plea, and a challenge to discretionary aspects of sentence does not fall within that narrow ambit. See Commonwealth v. Moyer, 444 A.2d 101 (Pa. 1982). The rationale for the policy was explained in Commonwealth v. Reichle, 589 A.2d 1140 (Pa.Super. 1991):
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.Id. at 1141 (quotations and citations omitted). Thus, we find Appellant waived any challenge to the discretionary aspects of his sentence by accepting the negotiated plea.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. __________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary