J

- A15016

- 15

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENN SYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

v.
SHEKIANA CHAMBERS Appellant No. 1739 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 15 , 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 51

- CR

- 0010468

- 2013

BEFORE: BOWES, J., MUNDY, J., and FITZGERALD, J. *
MEMORANDUM BY MUNDY, J.: FILED JUNE 23, 2015 Appellant, Shekiana Chambers, appeals from the May 15, 2014 aggregate judgment of sentence of three years’ probation, imposed after pleading guilty to hindering apprehension or prosecution and false
identification to law enforcement authorities. 1 After careful review, we
affirm. The trial court has set forth the relevant factual and procedural history, as follows.

On July 23, 2013, Philadelphia police officers arrested [Appellant] f or hinder ing apprehension and related offenses stemming from an incident wherein

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5105(a)(1) and 4914(a), respectively.J

- A15016

- 15

- 2

- [Appellant] enabled another person to evade arrest by posing as the other person and permitting officers to arrest her under that person’s name. After arraignment, court administrator s scheduled the matter for a waiver trial on December 6, 2013[,] before the Honorable Rayford A. Means. On that date, the [Appellant] requested a continuance. Honoring this request, Judge Means rescheduled the waiver trial for March 17, 2014[,] and trans ferred the matter to th[e instant trial court]. On March 17[, 2014] [Appellant] recanted her desire to proceed to a waiver trial and asserted her right to a jury trial. Upon hearing [Appellant]’s new demand for a jury trial and her corresponding continua nce request, th[e trial court] conducted a colloquy with [Appellant] and scheduled a jury trial on May 5, 2014. [Appellant] appeared on that date, but th[e trial court] was in the midst of another trial, so it could not proceed with [Appellant]’s jury tri al. [The trial c]ourt conducted another colloquy with [Appellant] and rescheduled [Appellant]’s jury trial to May 6, 2014. On May 6[,2014] [Appellant] failed to appear, and th[e trial c]ourt issued a bench warrant for her arrest. Court administrators ag ain rescheduled [Appellant]’s jury trial to May 13, 2014. On that date, [Appellant]’s attorney failed to appear. Yet again, court administrators rescheduled [Appellant]’s jury trial to May 15, 2014. Trial Court Opinion, 10/23/14, at 1

- 2. Appellant entered an open guilty plea to the aforementioned charges on May 15, 2014. Appellant read, reviewed, and signed a written guilty plea colloquy, wherein the trial court specifically guaranteed her a term of probation. Written Guilty Plea Colloqu y, 5/15/14, at 1. At her hearing, Appellant stated that no one threatened her to plead guilty, she wasJ

- A15016

- 15

- 3

-

pleading guilty of her own free will, and she was pleading guilty because she was guilty of the offenses charged. N.T., 5/15/14, at 5

- 7. That same day , the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of three years’ probation. 2 No post

- sentence motions were filed. On June 10, 2014, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. 3 On appeal, Appellant raises the following issue for our review.
Was it reversible error for the trial judge to repeatedly pressure ... Appellant to enter into a guilty plea when Appellant had indicated, numerous times, that she wished to be tried by a jury, resulting in a plea under duress? Appellant’s Brief at 1.
In assessin g challenges to the validity of a guilty plea, we are guided by the following standard of review. “Settled Pennsylvania law makes clear that by entering a guilty plea, the defendant waives his right to challenge on direct appeal all nonjurisdictional defe cts except the legality of the sentence and the validity of the plea. ” Commonwealth v. Lincoln , 72 A.3d 606, 609 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation omitted), appeal denied , 87 A.3d 319 (Pa. 2014). “Our law presumes that a defendant who enters a guilty plea was

a ware of what he was doing. He bears the burden of proving otherwise.”

____________________________________________
2 Specifically, Appellant was sentenced to two years’ probation for hindering apprehension or prosecution, and a consecutive one year term of probation for false identification to law enforcement authority.

3 Appellant and the trial court have complied wit h Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925.J

- A15016

- 15

- 4

-

Commonwealth v. Yeomans , 24 A.3d 1044, 1047 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citation omitted). “[A] defendant has no absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea; rather, the decision to grant such a motion lies within the sound
discretion of the trial court.” Commonwealth v. Muhammad , 794 A.2d 378, 382 (Pa. Super. 2002).

A defendant wishing to challenge the voluntariness of a guilty plea on direct appeal must either object during the plea colloquy or file a motion to withdraw the plea within ten days of sentencing. Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(A)(1), (B)(1)(a)(i). Failure to employ either measure results in waiver. Historically, Pennsylvania courts adhere to this waiver principle because [i]t is for the court which accepted the plea to consider and correct, in the first instance, any error which may have been committed.
Lincoln , supra at 609

- 610 (Internal quotation marks and some citations omitted). Instantly, our review of the record reveals that Appellan t did not object to her plea prior to or during the May 15, 2014 guilty plea and sentencing hearing. Further, Appellant did not file a post

- sentence motion to withdraw her plea, despite being informed of her right to do so at said hearing. N.T., 5/15/14, at 12

- 13. As noted above, in order to preserve an issue related to the validity of a guilty plea, an appellant must either object during the colloquy or otherwise raise the issue at the guilty plea hearing, the sentencing hearing, or through a post

- sente nce motion. Lincoln , supra
; accord Commonwealth v. Tareila , 895 A.2d 1266, 1270 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2006) ; see also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (stating, “[i]ssues not raised in the lowerJ

- A15016

- 15

- 5

-

court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal[]”).
Accordin gly, Appellant has waived any challenge to the validity of her guilty plea. Based on the foregoing, we conclude Appellant’s sole issue on appeal is waived for lack of preservation. Accordingly, the trial court’s May 15, 2014 judgment of sentence is affir med. Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 6/23/2015