J. S16034/16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee :

:

v. :

:

COLLEEN CLARK, :

:

Appellant : No. 1092 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 9, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-46-CR-0003055-2013

BEFORE: OTT, J., DUBOW, J., and JENKINS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED APRIL 13, 2016

Appellant, Colleen Clark, appeals from judgment of sentence entered 

in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County following her third 

conviction for Driving Under the Influence (DUI)1and related offenses. After 

careful review, we find that Appellant did not properly preserve the issues 

raised on appeal and, has, therefore waived appellate review. Accordingly, 

we affirm. 

The trial court set forth the factual and procedural history of this case 

as follows:

On February 16, 2013, Appellant was arrested for [DUI] in Lower 

Moreland Township, Montgomery County. On April 25, 2014, 

Appellant entered an open guilty plea to a second offense DUI 

charge. A sentencing hearing was scheduled for August 7, 2014. 

 

1 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(c).
J. S16034/16

- 2 -

Prior to the sentencing hearing, Appellant left the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to accept an employment 

opportunity in Florida. Appellant failed to appear for her 

scheduled sentencing hearing and a bench warrant was issued 

for her arrest. After Appellant was arrested and extradited to 

Pennsylvania, a new sentencing hearing was held on January 12, 

2015. On that date, the Commonwealth informed the [trial] 

court that it had miscalculated the number of Appellant's 

previous DUI convictions. The present charge, as it turned out, 

was Appellant's third offense in the last ten years. In light of this 

fact, [the trial] court sua sponte withdrew Appellant's open guilty 

plea and vacated the disposition from April 24, 2014. On 

February 10, 2015, a bench trial was held where Appellant was 

found guilty of two counts of DUI and one count of Driving with a 

Suspended License-DUI Related. On April 9, 2015, [the trial] 

court sentenced Appellant to serve fifteen months to five years 

of incarceration. 

Trial Ct. Op., filed 7/8/15, at 1-2 (some capitalization omitted). 

On April 17, 2015, Appellant filed a timely Notice of Appeal and on 

April 27, 2015, the trial court ordered her to file a Statement of Matters 

Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925. On May 15, 2015, 

Appellant filed a “Preliminary Concise Statement of Matters Complained of 

Pursuant to P[a].R.A.P. 1925” and raised one issue. The Appellant 

challenged the trial court’s authority to reject her guilty plea: 

Whether the trial court can sua sponte reject [A]ppellant’s guilty 

plea, after accepting the plea, closing the plea proceedings, 

scheduling the matter for sentencing, ordered a PSI and PPI, and 

the [Appellant] relying on the representations to her detriment, 

merely because the Commonwealth claims it made a mistake in 

tabulating the number of DUI’s defendant had sustained.
J. S16034/16

- 3 -

1925(b) Statement at 1. Appellant did not challenge the trial court’s 

reasoning or discretion to reject her guilty plea.2 

Subsequently, in her brief, Appellant concedes that the trial court had 

the authority to reject her guilty plea, and for the first time, challenges the 

trial court’s reasons or discretion in doing so. In particular, Appellant 

frames her argument in this manner in her brief:

Whether a trial court abuses discretion and/or acts ultra vires 

when it allegedly acts sua sponte to reject a guilty plea merely 

because the Commonwealth asserts months after the plea 

hearing a failure in having detected in its discovery that the said 

[Appellant] had incurred her third DUI instead of only her 

second, after colloquying the [Appellant], accepting the plea, 

closing the plea proceedings, scheduling the matter for 

sentencing, ordering a PSI and a PPI, and the [Appellant] relying 

on such representations to her detriment?

Appellant’s Brief at 8 (capitalization omitted).

The trial court noted that the Appellant only challenged the trial court’s 

authority, and not its discretion, to reject a guilty plea in her 1925(b) 

Statement, so the trial court in its 1925(a) Opinion only addressed whether 

it had the authority to reject the guilty plea. The trial court specifically 

found: “Appellant does not challenge whether [the trial court] abused its 

discretion by withdrawing her plea, thus the reason for doing so will not be 

discussed.” Trial Ct. Op., filed 7/8/15, at 2 n.1 (emphasis added). 

 

2 On March 25, 2015, the trial court granted Appellant an additional thirty 

days to supplement the 1925(b) Statement. Appellant failed to do so.
J. S16034/16

- 4 -

It is well settled that issues not raised in a 1925(b) Statement are 

waived for purposes of appellate review. Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii); 

Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484, 494 (Pa. Super. 2011). Likewise, 

issues raised in a 1925(b) Statement, but not raised and developed in 

Appellant’s Brief are deemed waived. Commonwealth v. Bullock, 948 

A.2d 818, 823 (Pa. Super. 2008). 

The concepts of a trial court’s authority and discretion are two 

separate and distinct issues that must be separately raised and briefed in 

order to preserve the issues for appeal. The Appellant raised the issue of 

the trial court’s authority to reject the guilty plea in her 1925(b) 

Statement, but failed to address the issue in her brief. Therefore, the 

Appellant waived her right to challenge the trial court’s authority to reject 

the guilty plea.

Similarly, the Appellant, in her 1925(b) Statement, failed to raise the 

issue of the trial court’s discretion in rejecting her guilty plea and thus 

waived the issue on appeal. The Appellant cannot resurrect a challenge to 

the trial court’s discretion by raising the issue for the first time in her brief. 

Therefore, Appellant has waived appellate review of the issues of whether 

the trial court had the discretion or authority to reject her guilty plea.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished. 
J. S16034/16

- 5 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/13/2016