J-S23004-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

CORDELL CHASE 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 124 EDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 21, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0010234-2021

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.: FILED AUGUST 29, 2023

Cordell Chase appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the 

Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia after Chase pled guilty to possession 

of a controlled substance.

1 Chase claims his guilty plea was not entered 

knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. However, as Chase failed to preserve 

the claim in the lower court, we find his claim waived and hereby affirm.

On August 23, 2022, Chase entered a negotiated guilty plea to one count 

of possessing a controlled substance in exchange for the Commonwealth’s 

withdrawal of a charge for possession with intent to deliver a controlled 

substance. See N.T., Guilty Plea Hearing, 8/23/2022, at 20-21. On December 

____________________________________________

1 Chase admitted he had possessed three- and one-half grams of marijuana 

and approximately five grams of cocaine base. See N.T., Guilty Plea 

Hearing, 8/23/2022, at 22. 
J-S23004-23

- 2 -

21, 2022, the trial court sentenced Chase to three years of probation 

supervised by the drug and alcohol unit of the Philadelphia Adult Probation 

and Parole Department. Chase did not file a post-sentence motion to withdraw 

his guilty plea but filed this pro se appeal on January 3, 2023. Plea counsel 

was permitted to withdraw his appearance, and the trial court appointed 

present counsel to represent Chase on appeal.

In his sole issue on appeal, Chase challenges the validity of his guilty 

plea by claiming the plea was not made knowingly, voluntarily, and 

intelligently. However, “[i]ssues not raised in the trial court are waived and 

cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.” Pa.R.A.P. 302(a). To preserve 

an issue related to the validity of his guilty plea, Chase was required to

“object[ ] at the sentence colloquy or otherwise raise[ ] the issue at the 

sentencing hearing or through a post-sentence motion.” Commonwealth v. 

D'Collanfield, 805 A.2d 1244, 1246 (Pa. Super. 2002) (citation omitted). A 

failure to object during the plea colloquy or file a motion to withdraw the plea 

within ten days of sentencing will result in waiver. See Commonwealth v.

Lincoln, 72 A.3d 606, 609–10 (Pa. Super. 2013). “The purpose of this waiver 

rule is to allow the trial court to correct its error at the first opportunity, and, 

in so doing, further judicial efficiency.” Commonwealth v. MonjarasAmaya, 163 A.3d 466, 469 (Pa. Super. 2017).

In Monjaras-Amaya, the appellant failed to challenge the validity of 

his guilty plea during his plea colloquy, nor did he file a post-sentence motion 
J-S23004-23

- 3 -

seeking to withdraw his plea. See id. Instead, Monjaras–Amaya raised the 

claim in his Rule 1925(b) statement, at a point when the trial court was 

without jurisdiction and could not grant relief. See id. This Court concluded

Monjaras-Amaya failed to preserve his claim before raising it in his Rule

1925(b) statement and, therefore, the issue was waived. See id.

Like in Monjaras-Amaya, Chase did not object to the validity of his 

guilty plea during his plea colloquy. Chase also failed to file a post-sentence 

motion seeking to withdraw his plea. As such, the trial court was never given 

the opportunity to correct the alleged errors with the plea. By raising the issue 

for the first time in his Rule 1925(b), Chase failed to preserve his claim that 

his guilty plea was not entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. 

Therefore, we find the issue waived.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 8/29/2023