J-S54040-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

FOWZIA MUSSE ABDULLAHI 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 154 MDA 2019

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 19, 2018

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-36-CR-0001497-2018

BEFORE: BOWES, J., LAZARUS, J., and DUBOW, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 27, 2019

Appellant, Fowzia Musse Abdullahi, appeals from the December 19, 

2018 Judgment of Sentence that was entered in the Lancaster Court of 

Common Pleas after she entered an open guilty plea to Fleeing or Attempting 

to Elude a Police Officer, Resisting Arrest, and Hindering Apprehension of 

Prosecution.1 After careful review, we affirm.

The relevant factual and procedural history is, briefly, as follows. On 

November 26, 2017, police initiated a traffic stop of Appellant’s vehicle after 

observing Appellant’s daughter—who had a warrant out for her arrest—enter 

the passenger side of the vehicle. Police arrested Appellant after she fled the 

scene of the traffic stop and later refused to exit the vehicle by holding onto 

____________________________________________

1 75 Pa.C.S. § 3733(a) and 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 5104, 5105(a)(2), respectively. 
J-S54040-19

- 2 -

the steering wheel, causing police officers to use force to remove her from the 

vehicle. 

Appellant appeared for a jury trial on December 19, 2018, aided by an 

interpreter. Prior to the start of jury selection, the Commonwealth informed 

the trial court that it just came into possession of an audio and video recording 

of an interview between a police officer and Appellant, demonstrating that 

Appellant was able to communicate effectively with the police officer in 

English. The trial court allowed Appellant and her counsel to view the video 

in open court prior to jury selection. After viewing the video, Appellant’s 

counsel requested a continuance to review the video evidence with his client. 

The trial court granted Appellant’s request, took a recess, and provided a 

conference room for Appellant and her counsel. Upon returning to the 

courtroom, Appellant entered an open guilty plea to all charges and the trial 

court immediately sentenced Appellant to an aggregate sentence of two years

of probation.

On January 17, 2019, Appellant simultaneously filed an untimely Nunc 

Pro Tunc Post-Sentence Motion in the Nature of a Motion to Withdraw Guilty 

Plea and a timely Notice of Appeal. On January 23, 2019, the trial court issued 

an Order finding, “said Motion is untimely in that counsel on the same date 

filed a Notice of Appeal to the Superior Court, relieving this Court of
J-S54040-19

- 3 -

jurisdiction.” Order, 1/23/19.2 Both Appellant and the trial court complied 

with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.3

Appellant raises a sole issue for our review: “Did the trial court err in 

denying [Appellant]’s request for a continuance the day of trial where the 

Commonwealth turned over video evidence it intended to use at trial 

minutes before the jury was selected which resulted in [Appellant]’s 

involuntary guilty plea?” Appellant’s Br. at 4. Appellant argues that the trial 

court’s failure to grant a continuance caused her guilty plea to be involuntary. 

Appellant’s Br. at 13-15. Because Appellant failed to file a timely PostSentence Motion, Appellant failed to preserve this issue for our review. 

When a defendant enters a guilty plea, she waives her right to challenge 

on direct appeal all nonjurisdictional defects except the legality of her sentence 

and the validity of her plea. Commonwealth v. Pantalion, 957 A.2d 1267, 

1271 (Pa. Super. 2008). “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.” 

____________________________________________

2 See Commonwealth v. Klein, 781 A.2d 1133, 1135 (Pa. 2001) (holding 

that where a Notice of Appeal has been filed, a trial court cannot act further 

in the matter); Pa.R.A.P. 1701. 

3 Appellant filed an untimely Rule 1925(b) Statement, but the trial court 

nevertheless addressed the issues contained in the untimely Statement. 

Accordingly, we decline to find waiver based on the untimely Statement. See 

Commonwealth v. Burton, 973 A.2d 428, 433 (Pa. Super. 2009) (en banc) 

(explaining that “this Court many decide the appeal on the merits if the trial 

court had adequate opportunity to prepare an opinion addressing the issues 

being raised on appeal.”).
J-S54040-19

- 4 -

Commonwealth v. Lincoln, 72 A.3d 606, 609-10 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citing 

Pa.R.Crim.P. 720). Failure to do so results in waiver. Id. See also

Commonwealth v. Tareila, 895 A.2d 1266, 1270 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2006)

(explaining that if an appellant fails to challenge his guilty plea in the trial 

court, he may not do so on appeal). “[A] party cannot rectify the failure to 

preserve an issue by proffering it in response to a Rule 1925(b) order.” 

Commonwealth v. Monjaras-Amaya, 163 A.3d 466, 469 (Pa. Super. 2017) 

(citation omitted; emphasis removed).

Here, Appellant did not preserve this challenge at her plea colloquy or 

in a timely Post-Sentence Motion. Accordingly, she has waived any challenge 

to the voluntariness of her plea. See Lincoln, supra.

Judgment of Sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/27/2019