J-S28026-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

LAQUON KHYLIL PERKINS 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 10 WDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 12, 2022

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

No(s): CP-02-CR-0000735-2020

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., OLSON, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED: September 7, 2023

Appellant, Laquan Khylil Perkins, appeals from the judgment of sentence 

entered on July 12, 2022 in the Criminal Division of the Court of Common 

Pleas of Allegheny County, as made final by the denial of his post-sentence 

motion on December 1, 2022. We affirm.

We establish the factual and procedural background of this matter by 

quoting from Appellant’s statement of the case, to which both parties have 

agreed. See Commonwealth’s Brief at 2 (“Commonwealth agrees to 

[A]ppellant’s statement of the case”).

In 2019, [Appellant] was charged by police criminal complaint 

with homicide [18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2501(a)], robbery [18 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 3701(a)(1)(i)], burglary [18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3502(a)(1)(i)], and 

conspiracy [18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903], all arising from [an incident, 

captured by video recording, during which Appellant and two other 

armed men were depicted carrying the victim of a fatal gunshot 

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S28026-23

- 2 -

wound into his residence, which was later found to be ransacked]. 

See Criminal Complaint, 1/24/20.

On July 12, 2022, [Appellant] proceeded to jury selection in 

advance of a jury trial, but, [during the selection process], agreed 

to tender a negotiated plea. Accordingly, he proceeded to a 

guilty-plea hearing and pled guilty to [third-degree murder, 

robbery, burglary, and conspiracy]. See generally N.T. Plea and 

Sentencing Hearing, 7/12/22. . . . At the outset of the hearing, 

the trial court asked [Appellant’s] counsel [whether Appellant 

intended to stipulate to the factual allegations contained within 

the affidavit of probable cause in support of Appellant’s arrest 

warrant. Counsel responded that Appellant was prepared to so 

stipulate]. See id. at 3-4. And after conducting its plea colloquy, 

the trial court asked the Commonwealth if there was “anything

additional” for the record, and the Commonwealth offered the 

following:

• Forensic reports opining that a bullet recovered from the 

crime scene matched the barrel of a firearm recovered 

from [Appellant’s] home;

• A forensic report opining that a fingerprint recovered from

[the victim’s] home matched [Appellant’s] fingerprint;

• A forensic report indicating that DNA recovered from a 

cigarette butt recovered from [the victim’s] home 

matched [Appellant’s] DNA; and

• A forensic report indicating that the cause of [the victim’s] 

death was by gunshot, and the manner of death was 

homicide.

Id. at 12-13.

The trial court found the foregoing sufficient to demonstrate a 

factual basis for the plea and accepted [the negotiated 

agreement]. See id. at 14. Ultimately, [Appellant, on July 12, 

2022,] was sentenced to an aggravate[d] term of 25 to 50 years[’]

imprisonment. See Order of Sentence, 7/12/22.

[Appellant] sought and obtained [replacement counsel appointed 

by the court, who] filed a post-sentence motion to withdraw the 

plea, arguing the trial court failed to elicit information 
J-S28026-23

- 3 -

demonstrating a factual basis for the plea.[1] See Supplemental 

Post-Sentence Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea, 10/17/22. The 

trial court denied relief. See Trial Court Order 12/1/22.

[Appellant] appealed. See Notice of Appeal, 12/22/22. The trial 

court directed him to file a concise statement. See Trial Court 

Order, 12/28/22. [Appellant] did so, reiterating his claim. See 

Concise Statement, 1/23/23[.] The trial court issued a responsive 

statement, incorporating its earlier order denying relief. See Trial 

Court Opinion, 1/26/23[.] 

Appellant’s Brief at 6-8.

Appellant argues that Appellant’s stipulation to the affidavit of probable 

cause, together with the supplemental forensic reports submitted by the 

Commonwealth, “do not demonstrate a factual basis for [Appellant’s] plea, 

most clearly for robbery.” Appellant’s Brief at 13. According to Appellant, the 

trial court’s failure to conduct meaningful review and establish a factual basis 

____________________________________________

1 Appellant filed a pro se post-sentence motion on July 18, 2022. Since 

Appellant was represented by counsel at this time, we are constrained to deem 

this submission a legal nullity. See Commonwealth v. Padilla, 80 A.3d 

1238, 1258-1259 (Pa. 2013) (defendant has no right to hybrid 

representation). Thereafter, however, Appellant filed a timely, counseled 

post-sentence motion on July 22, 2022. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(A)(1) (“a 

written post-sentence motion shall be filed no later than 10 days after 

imposition of sentence”). With leave of court, counsel then supplemented the 

post-sentence filing on October 17, 2022. Eventually, the trial court, on 

December 1, 2022, rejected Appellant’s post-sentence request to withdraw 

his guilty plea and Appellant lodged a notice of appeal on December 22, 2022. 

“Jurisdiction is vested in the Superior Court upon the filing of a timely notice 

of appeal.” Commonwealth v. Green, 862 A.2d 613, 615 (Pa. Super. 2004) 

(en banc) (citation omitted). “The time for filing an appeal can be extended 

beyond [thirty] days after the imposition of sentence [] if the defendant files 

a timely post-sentence motion.” Id. at 618; Pa.R.A.P. 720(A)(2). Because 

counsel for Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal after the trial court denied 

a timely post-sentence motion, we may assert jurisdiction over this appeal. 
J-S28026-23

- 4 -

for Appellant’s plea must be viewed as an abdication of the court’s duty under 

Pa.R.Crim.P. 590. Appellant therefore asks us to vacate his judgment of 

sentence and remand for further proceedings. We disagree.

The principles governing our review are well settled. In prior cases, we 

have said that “[a] trial court's decision regarding whether to permit a guilty 

plea to be withdrawn should not be upset absent an abuse of discretion.” 

Commonwealth v. Pardo, 35 A.3d 1222, 1227 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citation 

omitted). We employ the term “discretion” as a call for

the exercise of judgment, wisdom and skill so as to reach a 

dispassionate conclusion, and discretionary power can only exist 

within the framework of the law, and is not exercised for the 

purpose of giving effect to the will of the judges. Discretion must 

be exercised on the foundation of reason, as opposed to prejudice, 

personal motivations, caprice or arbitrary action. Discretion is 

abused when the course pursued represents not merely an error 

of judgment, but where the judgment is manifestly unreasonable 

or where the law is not applied or where the record shows that 

the action is a result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will.

Commonwealth v. Dinell, 270 A.3d 530, 533 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citation 

and quotation omitted).

Although no absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea exists in 

Pennsylvania, the standard applied differs depending on whether 

the defendant seeks to withdraw the plea before or after 

sentencing. When a defendant seeks to withdraw a plea after 

sentencing, he must demonstrate prejudice on the order of 

manifest injustice. [A] defendant may withdraw his guilty plea 

after sentencing only where necessary to correct manifest 

injustice. Thus, post-sentence motions for withdrawal are subject 

to higher scrutiny since the courts strive to discourage the entry 

of guilty pleas as sentence-testing devices.

Manifest injustice occurs when the plea is not tendered knowingly, 

intelligently, voluntarily, and understandingly. In determining 
J-S28026-23

- 5 -

whether a plea is valid, the court must examine the totality of 

circumstances surrounding the plea. Pennsylvania law presumes 

a defendant who entered a guilty plea was aware of what he was 

doing, and the defendant bears the burden of proving otherwise.

Commonwealth v. Hart, 174 A.3d 660, 664-65 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citations 

and footnote omitted and formatting altered).

A valid plea colloquy ensures that a defendant's plea is truly knowing 

and voluntary. See Commonwealth v. Maddox, 300 A.2d 503, 504 (Pa. 

1973). “[Such an inquiry must address] six areas: 1) the nature of the 

charges, 2) the factual basis of the plea, 3) the right to a jury trial, 4) the 

presumption of innocence, 5) the sentencing ranges, and 6) the plea court's 

power to deviate from any recommended sentence.” Commonwealth v. 

Reid, 117 A.3d 777, 782 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citations and quotation marks 

omitted); see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 590, cmt. (setting forth a non-exhaustive list 

of questions a trial judge should ask before accepting a plea).

This Court has observed that the factual basis requirement is essential 

to a valid plea colloquy. See Dinell, 270 A.3d at 533. The central purpose 

of the requirement is to avoid a defendant's mistaken plea to an offense that 

is not implicated by his conduct. See id. at 533-534 (citations and quotations 

omitted). The establishment of a factual basis for a guilty plea also facilitates 

appellate review and conserves judicial resources. See Commonwealth v. 

Flanagan, 854 A.2d 489, 500 (Pa. 2004), citing Boykin v. Alabama, 395 

U.S. 238, 244 (1969) (“When the [trial court] discharges [its] function [at a 

plea colloquy], [it] leaves a record adequate for any review that may be later 
J-S28026-23

- 6 -

sought, and forestalls the spin-off of collateral proceedings that seek to probe 

murky memories.”) (citations and footnotes omitted).

Nothing in Rule 590 “precludes the supplementation of the oral colloquy 

by a written colloquy that is read, completed, and signed by the defendant 

and made a part of the plea proceedings.” Commonwealth v. Bedell, 954 

A.2d 1209, 1212-1213 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation omitted). “In determining 

whether a guilty plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily, a court is free to 

consider the totality of the circumstances surrounding the plea.” Id. at 1212 

(citation omitted and formatting altered). Further, a “defendant is bound by 

statements he makes during plea colloquy, and may not assert grounds for 

withdrawing plea that contradict statements made when he pleaded guilty.” 

Reid, 117 A.3d at 783 (citation omitted).

After careful review of the totality of circumstances, we are persuaded

that Appellant’s plea colloquy established a factual basis for his crimes and, 

therefore, that he tendered his guilty plea in a knowing and voluntary manner. 

As stated above, Appellant stipulated to the allegations set forth in the 

affidavit of probable cause and the Commonwealth introduced supplemental 

forensic reports at the plea hearing. According to the affidavit of probable 

cause, an Allegheny County homicide detective reviewed video recordings that 

captured Appellant, together with two other armed men, carrying a fatally 

wounded gunshot victim into his residence. A supplemental forensic report 

introduced by the Commonwealth confirmed the victim’s cause of death as a 
J-S28026-23

- 7 -

gunshot wound to the head. Additional forensic reports offered by the 

Commonwealth showed that a bullet recovered from the crime scene matched 

a firearm taken from Appellant’s residence, that Appellant’s fingerprint was 

discovered in the victim’s home, and that Appellant’s DNA was recovered from 

a cigarette butt found at the crime scene. Contrary to Appellant’s claim 

suggesting the absence of a factual foundation connecting Appellant to a 

robbery or theft, the affidavit of probable cause alleged that the victim’s 

significant other identified, as the victim’s property, a gold necklace recovered 

from the street in front of the victim’s home and a gold ring recovered near 

the front porch of the victim’s residence. These allegations suggest that 

Appellant, and the two other armed men captured on video, separated the 

victim from his personal property during the course of this violent episode. In 

short, the totality of circumstances established through stipulation and 

supplemental reports supplied a firm factual foundation that linked Appellant

to the crimes of third-degree murder, robbery, burglary, and conspiracy. For 

these reasons, we conclude that the plea hearing demonstrated that Appellant 

entered his plea knowingly and voluntarily and that the trial court did not 

abuse its discretion in accepting Appellant’s negotiated plea agreement.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
J-S28026-23

- 8 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 9/7/2023