Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-0002331-2010 COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : RAYMOND G. POZOIC : CP-21-CR-2331-2010 IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1925 Masland, J., March 21, 2012:-- Defendant, Raymond G. Pozoic, appeals his judgment of sentence for the charges of Receiving Stolen Property and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. He complains of the following matters on appeal: 1. The Court erred in not permitting [Defendant] to withdraw his guilty plea prior to sentencing. 2. [Defendant’s] guilty plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered. Concise Statement, filed January, 3, 2012. At the outset, the court notes Defendant, represented at all times by counsel, never filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Instead, a review of the record reveals the following timeline. Initially, on March 29, 2011, the court conducted a hearing upon the unopposed petition to withdraw filed by Defendant’s first counsel, Gary L. Kelley, Esquire. Defendant did not appear at this hearing and the petition was granted. Then, on July 19, 2011, Defendant, now represented by Bryan M. McQuillan, Esquire, entered pleas of guilty to one count of Receiving Stolen Property and one count of Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. He did so in full satisfaction of all charges against him. He also participated in a CP-21-CR-2331-2010 contemporaneous guilty plea colloquy where he acknowledged the truth of the allegations against him and stated he had no questions regarding his plea. Subsequently, five minutes before his scheduled sentencing hearing, on September 6, 2011, Defendant informed Attorney McQuillan that he wished to withdraw his guilty pleas. As Attorney McQuillan had only been retained as plea counsel, he made an oral motion to withdraw his appearance. Again, the Commonwealth did not object and the court continued the hearing to facilitate the Defendant’s filing of a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. Finally, Defendant appeared for sentencing on November 8, 2011. At that time, no motion to withdraw a guilty plea had been filed. Again, Attorney McQuillan was still counsel of record, though Defendant had made representations that he wished to have the sentencing continued to permit him to retain new private counsel. The Commonwealth opposed the granting of the continuance on the basis that Defendant’s actions up to that point showed that he had no legitimate purpose for requesting the continuance other than to improperly delay his sentencing, which had already been continued at least four times. Defendant reiterated his desire to withdraw his guilty pleas on the basis that they were not knowingly and intelligently entered. This assertion was rebutted by his own counsel who noted Defendant’s signature on a written guilty plea colloquy. Ultimately, the court agreed with the Commonwealth, and denied Defendant’s request for a continuance and proceeded to sentence Defendant. Defendant now complains of the following matters on appeal: 1. The Court erred in not permitting [Defendant] to withdraw his guilty plea prior to sentencing. -2- CP-21-CR-2331-2010 2. [Defendant’s] guilty plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered. Concise Statement, filed Jan. 3, 2012. First, the court notes no motion to withdraw a guilty plea was ever filed prior to sentencing, and therefore, no such motion was ever denied. Instead, the court denied Defendant’s fifth and final oral request for a continuance on the day of his scheduled sentencing. The court did so because a review of the record indicated that Defendant’s request was made for no legitimate purpose other than delaying his inevitable sentencing for the crimes for which he pled guilty. Essentially, the court determined that granting a continuance was not “in the interests of justice… .” Pa. R. Crim. P. Rule 106(a). Defendant next contends that his guilty pleas were not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered. This contention lacks merit. A review of the transcript of his guilty plea indicates that Defendant participated in a written guilty plea colloquy with his attorney, admitted the truth of the Commonwealth’s allegations, and declined to ask the court any further questions about his plea. As such, the court accepted his pleas and Defendant should not be permitted to yet again try to game the system by withdrawing his pleas at this late date. For these reasons, the court’s order should be affirmed. By the Court, (Date) Albert H. Masland, J. -3- CP-21-CR-2331-2010 Matthew Smith, Esquire Assistant District Attorney Stacy B. Wolf, Esquire For Defendant :saa -4-