J-S53033-20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

LEONARD HINES 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2835 EDA 2019

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 6, 2019

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

No(s): CP-51-CR-0005831-2016

BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., LAZARUS, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.: FILED: APRIL 12, 2021

Leonard Hines appeals the judgment of sentence entered by the Court 

of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court). Following a plea of nolo 

contendere to one count of involuntary deviate intercourse1 and one count of 

unlawful contact with a minor,

2 Hines was sentenced to an aggregate prison

term of 7.5 to 15 years. He now contends that the trial court erred in denying 

his pre-sentence motion to vacate the plea. He also argues that the trial court 

abused its discretion by ignoring mitigating sentencing factors, resulting in an 

excessive sentence. We affirm.

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S. § 3123(a)(1).

2 18 Pa.C.S. § 6318(a)(1).
J-S53033-20

- 2 -

I.

At Hines’ plea hearing, the prosecution proffered the following facts. In

2016, the victim (RA) was 17 years old and living with her mother and Hines, 

who is her stepfather. While RA was at home in her bedroom, Hines anally 

penetrated her against her will. Later that night, RA reported the incident to 

police. In her interview with them, she also revealed that two weeks earlier,

Hines had groped her and performed oral sex on her without her consent. 

DNA testing of rectal swabs taken from RA corroborated her allegations

against Hines, who was 41 years old at the time.

The case proceeded and a panel of jurors was selected. The following 

day, Hines agreed to forego a trial so that he could instead enter a plea to the 

two aforementioned offenses. After the prosecution stated the factual basis

for the two counts, as well as the definitions of the charges, Hines entered his

plea. However, about three months later and just before sentencing, Hines

sought to withdraw the plea. He filed a motion contending that he was 

innocent of the charges because he had not used force during the sexual anal 

contact between him and RA, making it consensual. Hines denied that any 

other sexual contact ever took place between them.

At the hearing on the motion to withdraw, the prosecution responded 

that during the plea colloquy, Hines had already admitted to the 

nonconsensual nature of the anal penetration as well as the other improper 

contact with RA. Hines had also been advised that lack of consent to that 
J-S53033-20

- 3 -

contact was an element of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse. The 

prosecution then introduced text messages Hines had sent RA’s mother 

admitting that he had “f*cked up.”

The trial court denied Hines’ motion to withdraw his plea, stressing that 

his grounds for withdrawal had conflicted with his earlier admissions at the 

plea hearing. Additionally, the trial court ruled that allowing Hines to withdraw 

his plea would cause substantial prejudice to the Commonwealth.

At the sentencing hearing, the trial court noted that Hines’ criminal 

history included convictions for sexually abusing a different stepdaughter, who 

was 14 years old at the time of those offenses. He had a prior record score 

of “4.”3

Hines presented mitigating evidence to the trial court detailing his 

mental state and personal history. The defense advised that Hines was a 45 

year-old father of 13, that he had been married for 10 years, and that he 

worked for decades as an electrical maintenance worker. As part of the 

mitigation materials, the defense presented a mental health evaluation and a 

pre-sentence report. These materials recounted that Hines had a history of 

substance abuse, which was in part rooted in his difficult upbringing and the 

drug addictions of his parents.

____________________________________________

3 See 204 Pa. Code §§ 303.1-303.8.
J-S53033-20

- 4 -

The trial court the sentenced Hines to a prison term of 7.5 to 15 years

as to each of the two counts, to be served concurrently. This range fell within 

the sentencing guidelines. Hines timely filed a post-sentence motion 

challenging the voluntariness of the plea and the reasonableness of the 

sentence. After his motion was denied, Hines then timely appealed the 

judgment of sentence.4

In his appellate brief, Hines raises two issues:

A. Did the [trial] court abuse its discretion by fashioning a 

sentence that exceeded that which is necessary to protect the 

public, and seems not to have taken into consideration [Hines’] 

extreme remorse, work history, potential for rehabilitation and 

acceptance of responsibility by pleading no contest?

B. Did the [trial] court err in denying [Hines’] presentence motion 

to withdraw his no-contest plea, after seemingly applying the 

higher standard for withdrawing pleas after sentencing (manifest 

injustice), and that the Commonwealth would suffer substantial 

prejudice if the motion were granted?

Appellant’s Brief, at 5.

II.

We first evaluate Hines’ claim that the trial court failed to take into 

account his mitigation evidence, resulting in an excessive prison term. Since 

____________________________________________

4 Hines complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. The trial court did not prepare an 

opinion in accordance with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) because by the time an appeal 

was filed, the assigned judge was no longer presiding on the Philadelphia 

County Court of Common Pleas. The lack of an opinion poses no impediment 

to appellate review because the reasons for the trial court’s rulings are already 

evident in the record.
J-S53033-20

- 5 -

this claim concerns a discretionary aspect of the sentence, Hines had to invoke 

this Court’s jurisdiction to consider it by first taking the necessary procedural 

steps and then by demonstrating that the claim involves a “substantial 

question.” See generally Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 935-36 

(Pa. Super. 2013). A “substantial question” exists if the appellant has made 

a colorable argument that the sentence violated a specific provision of the 

Sentencing Code or was contrary to the “fundamental norms underlying the 

sentencing process.” Commonwealth v. Johnson, 873 A.2d 704, 708 (Pa. 

Super. 2005).

There is no dispute that Hines complied with the procedures needed to 

raise his sentencing claim. See e.g., Pa.R.A.P. 2219(f); 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(b); 

Pa.R.Crim.P. 720. However, his claim is generally one that is found not to 

constitute a substantial question that can be addressed on direct appeal. 

“[T]his Court has held on numerous occasions that a claim of inadequate 

consideration of mitigating factors does not raise a substantial question for 

our review.” Commonwealth v. Downing, 990 A.2d 788, 794 (Pa. Super.

2010) (quoting Commonwealth v. Matroni, 923 A.2d 444, 455 (Pa. Super. 

2007); Commonwealth v. Kraft, 737 A.2d 755, 757 (Pa. Super. 1999) (no 

substantial question raised where appellant argued that court had not 

adequately considered certain mitigating factors). As Hines’ issue is not one 

that involves a substantial question, we cannot reach its merits.
J-S53033-20

- 6 -

Even if we were to find that a substantial question has been posed, we 

would conclude that no reversible error occurred. A claim of an excessive 

sentence is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. See 

Commonwealth v. Perry, 883 A.2d 599, 603 (Pa. Super. 2005). In order 

to prevail, Hines would have to “establish, by reference to the record, that the 

sentencing court ignored or misapplied the law, exercised its judgment for 

reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, or arrived at a manifestly 

unreasonable decision.” Commonwealth v. Disalvo, 70 A.3d 900, 903 (Pa. 

Super. 2013) (quoting Commonwealth v. Glass, 50 A.3d 720, 727 (Pa. 

Super. 2012)); see also Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1253 

(Pa. Super. 2014) (same).

The record in this case does not support Hines’ contention that the trial 

court failed to adequately take into account his remorse, acceptance of 

responsibility, rehabilitative needs, unstable upbringing and long work history. 

Far from showing remorse or accepting responsibility, Hines has, in fact,

denied the nonconsensual nature of his offenses. While Hines initially entered 

a plea to involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and unlawful contact with a 

minor, he thereafter insisted that his stepdaughter had consented to the 

intercourse. He altogether denied the remaining allegations of improper 

sexual conduct toward his stepdaughter.

As for Hines’ personal history and mental health struggles, the trial court 

is legally presumed to have considered that information because it was 
J-S53033-20

- 7 -

detailed in the defense’s pre-sentence report. “Our Supreme Court has 

determined that where the trial court is informed by a pre-sentence report, it 

is presumed that the court is aware of all appropriate sentencing factors and 

considerations, and that where the court has been so informed, its discretion 

should not be disturbed.” Commonwealth v. Bullock, 170 A.3d 1109, 1126 

(Pa. Super. 2017) (quoting Commonwealth v. Ventura, 975 A.2d 1128, 

1135 (Pa. Super. 2009)) (citation omitted).

In sum, all of the mitigation evidence Hines claims the trial court ignored

is either presumed to be considered or contradicted by Hines in an attempt to 

withdraw his plea. Taking in mind Hines’ past criminal history, particularly his 

previous sex offenses against children in his custody, we cannot find that the 

trial court imposed an excessive sentence or otherwise abused its discretion 

with respect to the length of the term.

III.

Next, we consider Hines’ two-part claim that the trial court (a) abused 

its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his plea, and (b) applied the 

wrong legal standard when ruling on that motion.

As Hines acknowledges, criminal defendants do not have an absolute 

right to withdraw a plea after it has been entered, as this is a matter of judicial 

discretion. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 591(A); Commonwealth v. Carrasquillo, 115 

A.3d 1284, 1291-92 (Pa. 2015). Prior to sentencing, withdrawals of a plea 

should be granted liberally, but only “if supported by a fair and just reason, 
J-S53033-20

- 8 -

and substantial prejudice will not inure to the Commonwealth.” Id. at 1291-

92; Commonwealth v. Perry, 32 A.3d 232, 236–37 (Pa. 2011).

5

 The denial 

of a request to withdraw a plea is proper “where the reasons offered by a 

defendant are belied by the record.” Carrasquillo, 115 A.3d at 1287. A 

declaration of innocence may qualify as a fair and just reason, but it must “be 

at least plausible to demonstrate, in and of itself” that withdrawal of the plea 

would promote fairness and justice. Id. at 1292.

In this case, we do not find that the trial court applied the wrong legal 

standard or that it abused its discretion in denying Hines’ motion to withdraw 

his plea. Hines did not offer a plausible reason why his plea was involuntary 

or that he was actually innocent of the charges. His sole grounds for 

withdrawing his plea were that this sexual contact was consensual, and that 

when entering his plea, he did not know that lack of consent is an element of 

involuntary deviate intercourse.

The record belies Hines’ claims of innocence and confusion about what 

he was pleading to. The allegations of his stepdaughter were corroborated by 

a DNA test. Hines himself sent text messages to his stepdaughter’s mother 

that were tantamount to admissions of his wrongdoing. At his plea colloquy, 

____________________________________________

5 “In the context of a pre-sentence request for plea withdrawal, the term 

“prejudice” means that, due to events occurring after the entry of the plea, 

the Commonwealth’s prosecution of its case is in a worse position that it would 

have been had the trial taken place as originally scheduled.” Commonwealth

v. Gordy, 73 A.3d 620, 624 (Pa. Super. 2013).
J-S53033-20

- 9 -

the prosecution proffered the facts supporting conviction, including the 

nonconsensual nature of the subject sexual contact, and Hines did not refute 

those facts.

Indeed, Hines heard not only the proffer, but also a recitation of the 

elements of the crimes. Yet he waited three months after the plea, until just 

before sentencing, to declare that he was innocent and that he had 

misunderstood that one of the offenses involved a lack of consent. On these 

facts, Hines’ reasons for withdrawal of his plea were not plausible and the trial 

court did not abuse its discretion in denying the pre-sentence motion.

As to Hines’ sub-claim that the trial court erroneously applied the more 

stringent “manifest injustice” standard for a post-sentence withdrawal of a 

plea, we again find that no relief is due. While the trial court did at times use 

incorrect terminology when articulating the standard for granting a presentence motion to withdraw a plea,6

the record in no way suggests that the

wrong standard was actually applied.

Despite occasionally mislabeling the applicable standard, the trial court 

recited Carrasquillo almost verbatim just before ruling. The trial court 

____________________________________________

6 At the post-sentence stage, it is more difficult to withdraw a plea and 

defendants must show that a manifest injustice would result from the denial 

of withdrawal. “Manifest injustice may be established if the plea was not 

tendered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. In determining whether a

plea is valid, the court must examine the totality of circumstances surrounding 

the plea.” Commonwealth v. Broaden, 980 A.3d 124, 129 (Pa. Super. 

2009) (citations omitted).
J-S53033-20

- 10 -

correctly explained that it had “full discretion to determine whether the 

withdraw request will be granted. Such discretion is to be administered 

li[b]erally in favor of the accused in demonstration by the defendant in a fair 

and just reason to grant it, unless the withdraw brings substantial prejudice 

on the Commonwealth.” Hearing Transcript, 9/6/2019, at p. 23. The trial 

court also assured the parties that it appreciated the difference between the 

standards for the pre-sentence and post-sentence withdrawal of a plea.

This leaves no doubt that the trial court both understood and applied 

the legal standard applicable at the pre-sentence stage of a criminal case. 

Thus, for all of these reasons, we conclude that Hines’ convictions and 

sentence must stand.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/12/21