J-S17040-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

VALERIE VENEZIA 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2639 EDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 18, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Criminal Division 

at No(s): CP-46-CR-0000604-2023

BEFORE: BOWES, J., KING, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED JUNE 06, 2024

Appellant, Valerie Venezia, appeals from the judgment of sentence of 

six months’ probation, imposed after she pled guilty to one count of possession 

of a controlled substance, 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16). Appellant solely argues 

that her guilty plea colloquy was defective and, therefore, her plea was 

unknowing and involuntary. After careful review, we affirm.

On May 15, 2022, Appellant was arrested for possession of heroin 

and/or fentanyl. On September 18, 2023, she entered a negotiated guilty 

plea to a single count of possession of a controlled substance, and was 

sentenced that same day to the agreed-upon term of six months’ probation. 

Appellant did not file any post-sentence motion. 

On October 5, 2023, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, and she 

subsequently complied with the trial court’s order to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) 

concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. The trial court filed its 
J-S17040-24

- 2 -

Rule 1925(a) opinion on October 24, 2023. Herein, Appellant states one issue 

for our review:

1. Did the [trial] court err in accepting [Appellant’s] guilty plea 

since the plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered 

because [Appellant’s] oral guilty plea colloquy failed to explain 

that [she] had a right to a jury trial, failed to explain that a 

jury’s verdict would need to be unanimous, failed to explain 

that the Commonwealth would be required to prove [her] guilt 

beyond a reasonable doubt, and failed to explain the right to 

confront and cross-examine witnesses at trial?

Appellant’s Brief at 3.

Appellant challenges the validity of her guilty plea, arguing that the oral 

colloquy was insufficient and, thus, her plea was involuntary and unknowing. 

However, as stated above, Appellant did not file any post-sentence motion 

seeking to withdraw her plea. This Court has previously held that a defendant 

cannot obtain review of a claim seeking to withdraw his/her guilty plea when 

he/she “failed to preserve it properly by either objecting during the plea 

colloquy or filing a post-sentence motion to withdraw the plea.” 

Commonwealth v. Lincoln, 72 A.3d 606, 611 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citing 

Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(B)(1)(a)(i)); see also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues not raised 

in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on 

appeal.”).1 Accordingly, Appellant has waived her challenge to the validity of 

her guilty plea for our review. 

____________________________________________

1 We note that Appellant does not assert that she preserved her issue orally 

at her guilty plea and sentencing hearing, and the certified record does not 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S17040-24

- 3 -

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Date: 6/6/2024

____________________________________________

contain the transcript of that proceeding for us to review. “[T]he duty to 

ensure the certified record contains all the facts and documents necessary for 

our review lies with the appellant. Thus, because our review necessitates a 

determination of whether issues were preserved, the appellant has the burden

to demonstrate which part of the certified record reveals the preservation of 

the appellate issues.” Commonwealth v. Rush, 959 A.2d 945, 949 (Pa. 

Super. 2008) (internal citation omitted). Appellant has failed to meet this 

burden in the instant case.