J-S21029-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

HERMAN OJEDA

Appellant No. 2355 EDA 2014

Appeal from the PCRA Order July 22, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-39-CR-0001163-2012

 CP-39-CR-0001297-2012

BEFORE: BOWES, J., JENKINS, J., and PLATT, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY JENKINS, J.: FILED APRIL 28, 2015

Appellant Herman Ojeda appeals from the order of the Lehigh County 

Court of Common Pleas denying his petition filed pursuant to the Post 

Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S. § 9541 et seq. We affirm. 

On December 5, 2012, Appellant pled guilty to one count of burglary 

at docket number CP-39-CR-0001163-2012 and 40 counts of burglary and 

three counts of attempted burglary at docket number CP-39-CR-0001297-

2012. N.T., 12/5/2012, at 54. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the 

Commonwealth agreed to cap the minimum sentence at 20 years’ 

imprisonment and to cap the maximum sentence at 40 years’ imprisonment. 

Id. at 4. 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S21029-15

- 2 -

On January 7, 2013, the trial court sentenced Appellant to 20 to 40 

years’ imprisonment.1 N.T., 3/4/2013, at 25-28. On January 17, 2013, 

Appellant filed a post sentence motion, which the trial court denied on 

January 22, 2013. Appellant appealed and this Court affirmed on December 

10, 2013. 

On April 23, 2014, Appellant filed this timely PCRA petition. The PCRA 

court appointed counsel, who filed an amended petition on July 2, 2014. On 

July 21, 2014, the PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing. On July 23, 

2014, the PCRA court denied the amended PCRA petition. On August 13, 

2014, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Both Appellant and the PCRA 

court complied with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925.

The PCRA court made the following findings of fact following the July 

21, 2014 evidentiary hearing:

Amy Sonin, Esquire, an attorney in the Lehigh County 

Public Defender’s Office, represented [Appellant] in the 

above-captioned matters. During the course of her 

representation, [Appellant] met with Attorney Sonin 

numerous times and discussed the options of pursuing a 

trial or tendering a guilty plea to resolve the cases. 

Attorney Sonin spoke with the District Attorney at length 

regarding discovery. She received voluminous discovery1

from the Commonwealth on July 16, 2012. Most of this 

____________________________________________

1 The trial court imposed a sentence of 10 to 20 years’ imprisonment for the 

burglary conviction at docket no. CP-39-CR-0001163-2012. At docket no. 

CP-39-CR-0001297-2012, the trial court imposed a sentence of 10 to 20 

years’ imprisonment for each of the 43 convictions, which would run 

concurrent to each other but consecutive to the sentence imposed at docket 

no. CP-39-CR-0001163-2012.
J-S21029-15

- 3 -

discovery was reviewed with [Appellant] as well. Attorney 

Sonin related to [Appellant] that the District Attorney 

indicated that the best offer that would be extended to 

[Appellant] was capping his minimum sentence at twenty 

(20) years. [Appellant] was dissatisfied with the offer, as 

he desired at seven (7) to ten (10) year cap on his 

minimum sentence.

1 There was vast evidence implicating [Appellant] in 

the within matter, including, inter alia, GPS 

evidence, video from a neighbor’s camera, and a 

videotaped confession by [Appellant].

Attorney Sonin met with [Appellant] again on September 

5, 2012 and reiterated the District Attorney’s plea offer. 

[Appellant] requested Attorney Sonin to negotiate more 

with the District Attorney and attempt to secure a cap on 

the minimum at ten (10) years. Attorney Sonin explained 

to [Appellant] that she would do her best, but that the 

District Attorney had expressed to her that he would not 

be extending a better offer to [Appellant]. On October 23, 

2012, the District Attorney provided Attorney Sonin with 

the three (3) hour long videotaped confession by 

[Appellant]. Attorney Sonin reviewed all three (3) hours of 

the confession prior to the status conference on October 

29, 2012. Attorney Sonin met with [Appellant] on October 

25, 2012, and discussed with him her twenty (20) pages of 

handwritten notes that she had taken while viewing the 

videotaped confession. At this time, Attorney Sonin was 

unable to play the video recording for [Appellant] because 

she was not able to acquire a laptop from the Public 

Defender’s Office at that time. At the status conference 

before this Court on October 29, 2012, [Appellant] was 

informed by the District Attorney that he had to make a 

choice with regard to accepting or rejecting the plea offer 

that had been extended to him.2 [Appellant] asked for 

more time to consider the plea offer and to speak with his 

family about it. He also wanted to view the videotaped 

confession. Consequently, the status conference was 

continued to November 1, 2012.

2

[Appellant] was informed at this time, by the 

District Attorney through Attorney Sonin, that the 

deal was going to be “pulled off the table” if 

[Appellant] did not accept same.
J-S21029-15

- 4 -

Attorney Sonin met with [Appellant] on October 31, 2012, 

so that [Appellant] could watch the videotaped confession. 

However, [Appellant] was uncooperative and refused to 

view it with her. [Appellant] wanted a seven (7) to ten 

(10) year minimum sentence that the District Attorney was 

unwilling to offer. Thereafter, at the status conference on 

November 1, 2012, [Appellant] requested new counsel, 

despite the fact that Attorney Sonin worked hard for 

[Appellant] and negotiated a cap of the maximum 

sentence at forty (40) years. [Appellant] did not accept 

the offer on the table at that time, and a trial was 

scheduled for January 7, 2013. The District Attorney 

indicated that the offer that was extended was being 

withdrawn. 

Thereafter, [Appellant] corresponded with Attorney Sonin 

and apologized for his behavior. Attorney Sonin spoke 

with [Appellant] on November 16, 2012, and November 

21, 2012, at which time [Appellant] indicated that he 

wanted to accept the previously negotiated plea 

agreement. Attorney Sonin was successful in convincing 

the District Attorney to re-extend the offer to [Appellant].

Then, on December 5, 2012, with the assistance of 

Attorney Sonin, [Appellant] executed a written guilty plea 

colloquy form. This Court conducted an extensive verbal 

colloquy with [Appellant] at the time of his guilty plea. 

During [Appellant’s] oral plea colloquy, [Appellant]

acknowledged the terms of his plea agreement (N.T. 

12/5/12, pp. 2-8); denied having any drugs, alcohol or 

other medication that would affect his ability to know what 

he was doing (N.T. 12/5/12, p. 7); indicated that he read 

and understood the written plea colloquy (N.T. 12/5/12, p. 

8); stated that he understood that he did not have to give 

up his rights but could proceed to trial (N.T. 12/5/12, p. 

9); affirmed that it was his desire to enter the guilty plea 

(N.T. 12/5/12, p. 12); posed no questions to the judge 

(N.T. 12/5/12, p. 10); articulated that no one was forcing 

or threatening him to plead guilty (N.T. 12/5/12, p. 9); 

testified that no promises were made to him other than the 

plea agreement (N.T. 12/5/12, p. 9); and expressed 

satisfaction with his attorney (N.T. 12/5/12, pp. 9-10).

Trial Court Opinion, 7/23/2014, 2-4.
J-S21029-15

- 5 -

We further note that at the November 1, 2012 status conference, the 

trial court informed Appellant he could retain private counsel and Appellant 

stated he would search for an attorney. N.T., 11/1/2012, at 5, 8. The trial 

court scheduled trial for January 7, 2013, indicating that if Appellant did not 

retain new counsel, the public defender’s office would continue to represent 

him. Id. at 13. Appellant did not retain new counsel and stated at his guilty 

plea colloquy that he was satisfied with his appointed counsel. N.T., 

12/5/2012, at 9-10.

Appellant raises the following issues on appeal:

Was [Appellant’s] guilty plea involuntary and unlawfully 

induced for the following reasons:

A. Trial attorney was ineffective for failing to supply 

[Appellant] with discovery until 10 minutes before the 

hearing.

B. The trial court erred in not allowing [Appellant] to get 

new counsel prior to the plea.

Appellant’s Brief at 4 (capitalization removed). 

Our standard of review from the denial of post-conviction relief “is 

limited to examining whether the court’s determination is supported by the 

evidence of record and whether it is free of legal error.” Commonwealth v. 

Ousley, 21 A.3d 1238 (Pa.Super.2011) (citing Commonwealth v. 

Morales, 701 A.2d 516, 520 (Pa.1997)).

Appellant first alleges trial counsel was ineffective for failing to supply 

Appellant with discovery until 10 minutes before the guilty plea hearing. 

This claim lacks merit.
J-S21029-15

- 6 -

For ineffective assistance of counsel claims, the petitioner must 

establish: “(1) that the underlying claim has merit; (2) counsel had no 

reasonable strategic basis for his or her action or inaction; and (3) but for 

the errors or omissions of counsel, there is a reasonable probability that the 

outcome of the proceedings would have been different.” Ousley, 21 A.3d at 

1244 (quoting Commonwealth v. Rivera, 10 A.3d 1276, 1279 

(Pa.Super.2010)). “[C]ounsel is presumed to be effective and the burden of 

demonstrating ineffectiveness rests on appellant.” Id. “The failure to prove 

any one of the three [ineffectiveness] prongs results in the failure of 

petitioner’s claim.” Id. (quoting Rivera, 10 A.3d at 1279). 

“Allegations of ineffectiveness in connection with the entry of a guilty 

plea will serve as a basis for relief only if the ineffectiveness caused the 

defendant to enter an involuntary or unknowing plea.” Commonwealth v.

Hickman, 799 A.2d 136, 141 (Pa.Super.2002) (citing Commonwealth v. 

Allen, 732 A.2d 582 (Pa.1999)). Whether a plea was voluntary “depends on 

whether counsel’s advice was within the range of competence demanded of 

attorneys in criminal cases.” Commonwealth v. Lynch, 820 A.2d 728, 733 

(Pa.Super.2003) (quoting Hickman, 799 A.2d at 141). 

The PCRA court found Appellant’s claim that his counsel was ineffective 

for failing to show him his videotaped confession prior to the guilty plea 

lacked merit. Opinion, 7/23/2014, at 5. It reasoned counsel received the 

videotaped confession on October 23, 2012. Id. Counsel watched the 

three-hour confession and took 20 pages of handwritten notes. Id. She 
J-S21029-15

- 7 -

met with Appellant on October 25, 2012. Counsel was unable to show 

Appellant the videotaped confession at that time because she could not 

obtain a laptop, but she reviewed her comprehensive notes with Appellant. 

Id. at 5-6. On October 31, 2012, counsel visited Appellant and attempted to 

show him the videotaped confession. Id. at 6. Appellant refused to watch. 

Id. The court found counsel was not ineffective because counsel reviewed 

her notes of the interview with Appellant and attempted to show him the 

videotape. The record supports the PCRA court’s factual findings and we 

agree that the claim lacks merit.

Appellant next contends the trial court erred in not allowing Appellant 

to obtain new counsel prior to the plea and this error caused him to enter an 

involuntary and unlawful guilty plea.2 Although Appellant framed this issue 

as trial court error, the PCRA court analyzed this claim as an ineffective 

assistance of counsel claim. Opinion, 7/23/2014, at 6-7. The PCRA court, 

however, accurately analyzed the underlying issue, i.e., whether Appellant’s 

guilty plea was involuntary and unlawful.

____________________________________________

2

This claim is arguably waived because Appellant failed to raise the claim on 

direct appeal. We will address the merits, however, because Appellant 

claims the trial court erred by not granting his request for new counsel, and 

Appellant was represented by the Lehigh County Public Defender’s Office for 

both his guilty plea and direct appeal. This is the first opportunity for 

Appellant to raise this issue.
J-S21029-15

- 8 -

The PCRA provides relief following a guilty plea only if the guilty plea 

was “unlawfully induced where the circumstances make it likely that the 

inducement caused the petitioner to plead guilty and the petitioner is 

innocent.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)(iii). “[T]he law does not require that 

[the defendant] be pleased with the outcome of his decision to enter a plea

of guilty: All that is required is that [his] decision to plead guilty be 

knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made.” Commonwealth v. Willis, 

68 A.3d 997, 1001 (Pa.Super.2013) (quoting Commonwealth v. 

Anderson, 995 A.2d 1184, 1192 (Pa.Super.2010) (alterations in original)). 

A guilty plea colloquy must “affirmatively demonstrate the defendant 

understood what the plea connoted and its consequences.” Id. at 1002 

(quoting Commonwealth v. Lewis, 708 A.2d 497, 501 (Pa.Super.1998)). 

After a defendant enters a guilty plea, “it is presumed that he was aware of 

what he was doing, and the burden of proving involuntariness is upon him.” 

Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Bedell, 954 A.2d 1209, 1212 

(Pa.Super.2008)). 

The trial court conducted an extensive colloquy of Appellant at the 

December 5, 2012 guilty plea. N.T., 12/5/2012, at 6. The Commonwealth 

set forth the terms of the agreement, which Appellant acknowledged. Id. 

Appellant stated he understood his rights and understood the rights he was 

relinquishing by pleading guilty. Id. Appellant stated that no threats or 
J-S21029-15

- 9 -

promises were made, his plea was voluntary, and he had no questions. Id.

at 6-7. Appellant also stated that he was satisfied with counsel. Id.3 The 

trial court found the written and verbal colloquy established Appellant’s plea 

was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent, and he cannot now claim otherwise. 

Id. at 7. The colloquy establishes that neither the trial court nor counsel 

induced Appellant to plead guilty. The trial court did not abuse its discretion 

in finding Appellant entered a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary plea. 

Because the plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, Appellant’s claim 

of trial court error fails.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/28/2015

____________________________________________

3 Appellant is bound by the statements made at the time of the guilty plea. 

See Commonwealth v. Willis, 68 A.3d 997, 1009 (Pa.Super.2013) 

(appellant bound by statements made in open court under oath).