Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-1493,2057,1865,1297,2196 crmCOMMONWEALTH VS. EDWARD L. PATTERSON IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 98-1493 CRIMINAL 98-2057 CRIMINAL 98-1865 CRIMINAL 98-1297 CRIMINAL 98-2196 CRIMINAL IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO RULE 1925 The defendant, Edward L. Patterson, plead guilty to six separate charges pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement with the District Attorney's office. This court sentenced the defendant pursuant to his guilty plea. This appeal followed. The defendant entered his guilty plea on December 7, 1998. Under the agreement, the defendant plead guilty to one count each of robbery, criminal attempt burglary, theft by unlawful taking, DUI, driving while under suspension, and resisting arrest. As a result, the district attorney agreed not to pursue a five-year mandatory' minimum sentence, agreed that the plea would be in full satisfaction of other charges, and changed the charge of escape to resisting arrest. On December 8, 1998 this Court sentenced the defendant to a term of imprisonment in a state correctional institution for a period of not less than four nor more than eight years for the robbery charge and also sentenced him on the remaining charges to mn concurrently with the robbery charge. According to the statement filed by counsel, the defendant wrote to his attorney on December 30, 1998, and asked him to file an appeal. The basis of the defendant's appeal is that he wishes to be placed in the Motivational Boot Camp Program. We are satisfied that the defendant is not entitled to relief. In reaching our decision, we note the language of Commonwealth v. Reichle, 404 Pa. Super. 1,589 A.2d 1140 (1991). "Generally, a plea of guilty 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." Id. at 3,589 A.2d at 1141. The validity of a guilty plea may only be challenged if it is not knowing, intelligent and voluntary. See Commonwealth v. Flood, 426 Pa Super. 555,627 A.2d 1193 (1993) and Pa.R.Crim. P. 319. Rule 319(b)(2) provides that the record shall reflect whether the defendant "understands and voluntarily accepts the terms of the plea agreement on which the guilty plea is based." It is clear from the record that the defendant understood and voluntarily assented to the plea agreement. The Court: ...But because you are pleading guilty, the issues that you could raise in this case are very, very narrow. They would include whether your guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily and intelligently entered, which is why we are going through this process. Whether I have jurisdiction over your case, which would include the question of whether these crimes were committed in Cumberland County. Whether your counsel was effective. Whether your sentence was lawful ... Do you understand that? The defendant: Yes, your Honor. The Court: ... Do you feel you have had ample opportunity to discuss these matters with Mr. Scherer? The defendant' Yes. The Court' Is there anything that you have asked him to do that he hasn't done? The defendant: No Sir. Guilty Plea Proceedings at 8-9. A focus of our inquiry could be whether the defendant was misled or misinformed by his attorney or the District Attorney's office when deciding to enter his guilty plea. See Flood at 567, 627 A.2d at 1199 (citing Commonwealth v. Broadwater, 330 Pa. Super. 234, 243,479 A.2d 526, 531 (1984)). The defendant, however, has not alleged that he was misled or that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. Thus, we cannot grant the defendant's request that his sentence be altered at this stage. "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. Reichle at 4, 589 A.2d at 1141 (quoting Commonwealth v. Coles, 365 Pa. Super. 562, 571,530 A.2d 453,458 (1987)). March ~[~ , 1999 Jaime Keating, Esquire Chief Deputy District Attorney K sl J. Michael A. Scherer, Esquire For the Defendant :rlm