J. S76006/14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA :

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

v. :

:

M. PATRICK HAUGH, : No. 1968 WDA 2013

:

 Appellant :

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, October 31, 2013,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County

Criminal Division at Nos. CP-65-CR-0000876-2013,

CP-65-CR-0000877-2013, CP-65-CR-0002418-2012

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., PANELLA AND OLSON, JJ. 

MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED FEBRUARY 10, 2015

Appellant, M. Patrick Haugh, appeals from the judgment of sentence of 

October 31, 2013, entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland 

County. We affirm.

On April 9, 2013, before the Honorable Debra Ann Pezze, appellant 

entered a general guilty plea on three separate cases to the following 

charges: person not to possess a firearm, unsworn falsification, one count 

each of terroristic threats, recklessly endangering another person, 

aggravated assault, two counts of disarming a law enforcement officer 

without lawful authorization, one count of resisting arrest, criminal mischief, 

and disorderly conduct. An on-the-record colloquy occurred where the court 

identified each count, explained the maximum penalties he could receive, 
J. S76006/14

- 2 -

and described the incidents which gave rise to each respective charge. For 

each count, appellant stated that he was pleading guilty. Sentencing was 

deferred pending the completion of a pre-sentence report.

On October 31, 2013, appellant appeared for a sentencing hearing 

before the Honorable Richard E. McCormick.1 The victim in one of the cases 

took the stand and gave a statement. After affording appellant an 

opportunity to address the court, Judge McCormick sentenced him to an 

aggregate term of 42 to 84 months’ incarceration with credit for any time 

served, no contact with the victims, forfeiture of the firearm, as well as costs 

and restitution. 

On November 6, 2013, a timely pro se motion to withdraw his guilty 

pleas was filed as well as a request for court-appointed counsel. 

Judge McCormick held a hearing on December 5, 2013, and appellant was 

represented by David J. Eckle, Esq. Thereafter, Judge McCormick denied the 

motion and granted defense counsel leave to withdraw his appearance.2 

(See docket #29.) On December 9, 2013, a pro se notice of appeal was 

filed. (Docket #30.) Subsequently, a Grazier3 hearing was held on 

March 28, 2014, at which time the court appointed James M. Fox, Esq., to 

 

1

Judge Pezze was on a leave of absence for medical reasons.

2 The record indicates that appellant was unwilling to leave the courtroom 

and had to be carried out by sheriffs. (Notes of testimony, 12/5/13 at 9.)

3 Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998).
J. S76006/14

- 3 -

represent appellant for purposes of appeal. Counsel filed a concise 

statement of matters complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b), and on May 29, 2014, Judge McCormick issued a Rule 1925(a) 

opinion. 

Appellant presents the following issues on appeal:

I. The Appellant’s guilty plea was not knowingly, 

voluntarily, and intelligently entered for the 

following reasons:

a. Counsel for the Appellant did not 

review the charges with the 

Appellant, possible defenses that 

could be raised or the sentencing 

guidelines applicable to the 

offenses thereby preventing the 

Appellant from entering a knowing, 

voluntary and intelligent plea;

b. The Appellant expressed an 

intention, prior to sentencing, to 

withdraw his guilty plea by writing 

a letter to the Honorable Debra A. 

Pezze wherein he informed the 

court that he did not believe he 

should be pleading guilty.

II. The Appellant’s guilty plea was 

deficient and not knowingly, 

voluntarily, and intelligently 

entered as the lower court failed, 

at the time of the guilty plea 

colloquy, and at sentencing, to 

advise the Appellant of his 

post-sentence appeal rights as a 

result of the entry of the guilty 

plea.

Appellant’s brief at 2.
J. S76006/14

- 4 -

Appellant first argues that guilty plea counsel did not review the 

charges with him, possible defenses that could be raised, or the sentencing 

guidelines applicable to the offenses, thereby preventing him from entering 

a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent plea. (Appellant’s brief at 6.) After a 

thorough review of the record, appellant’s brief, the relevant law, and the

well-reasoned opinion of the trial court, we find this argument to be without 

merit. Because the trial court’s opinion adequately and accurately disposes 

of this issue, we affirm on the basis of that opinion. (See trial court opinion, 

5/29/14 at 1-2.)

Next, appellant argues that he “expressed an intention, prior to 

sentencing, to withdraw his plea by writing a letter to [Judge Pezze] wherein 

he informed the court that he did not believe he should be pleading guilty.” 

(Appellant’s brief at 6.) As the Commonwealth notes, there is nothing in the 

record substantiating appellant’s claim that he sent a letter to Judge Pezze 

prior to being sentenced. Furthermore, since appellant was represented by 

counsel, any pro se motion filed would have been a legal nullity. See

Commonwealth v. Nischan, 928 A.2d 349, 355 (Pa.Super. 2007) 

(“Appellant had no right to file a pro se motion because he was represented 

by counsel. This means that his pro se post-sentence motion was a nullity, 

having no legal effect.”). No relief is due.

In his final claim, appellant argues that his guilty plea is invalid as the 

sentencing court did not explain his post-sentence or appeal rights as 
J. S76006/14

- 5 -

required by Pa.R.Crim.P. 704(c)(3). The lower court and the Commonwealth 

do not dispute this assertion. We agree with the Commonwealth that since 

appellant filed a timely pro se notice to withdraw his guilty plea and 

thereafter filed a timely counseled notice of appeal to this court, the error 

was harmless. The remedy of a remand so the court could properly advise 

appellant of his rights is moot as appellant filed a timely post-sentence 

motion and appeal and did not affect the validity of his plea. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 2/10/2015
Circulated 01/23/2015 03:04 PM

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WESTMORELAND COUNTY, 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

CRIMINAL DIVISION 

COMMONWEALTII OF PENNSYL V ANlA ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

vs. 

M. PA1RICK HAUGH, 

DefendantiAppellant. 

No. 241 8 C2012 

877 C 2013 

876 C 2013 

OPINION OF COURT PURSUANT TO RULE 1925(8) OF THE PENNSYL VANtA 

RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 

AND NOW, to wit, tllls'J4- day of May, 2014, the Court hereby issues the 

following Opinion in support of the Order appeaJed from, indicating those places in the 

record where such reasons for the court's rulings can be found, pursuant to Pennsylvania 

Rule of Appellate Procedure No. 1925(a). 

This appeal is from this Court's denial of the Defendantl Appellant's pro se 

Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea. In his Concise Slatement of Errors Complained of on 

Appeal, Appellant contends that his guilty plea was not knowingly, voluntarily and 

intelligently entered. ,-- -- - -. ~ - .. - . 

The fIrst basis upon which Appellant makes his claim is that his fonner legal 

counsel did not review the charges with him. did not discuss the possible defenses that 

could be raised, and did not explain the sentencing guidelines that were applicable to the 

offenses. To the extent that Appellant raises issues oftrial counsel's ineffectiveness, the 

evidence of counsel's ineffectiveness was nol offered or deveJoped at the hearing on the 

I 

ADDENDUM C 
Circulated 01/23/2015 03:04 PM

Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea. Furthermore, after reviewing the fI.Ies on this matter, 

we have been unable to find a Guilty Plea Petition or Petitions which would have set 

fonh Lhe charges and the possible maximum sentences, even though the Appellant 

confmned, when questioned by tbe Honorable Debra A. Pezze that he had completed a 

petition with his counsel. (See Transcript of General Guilty Pleas, April 9, 2013, p. 11, 

proceeding before the Honorable Debra A. Pezze.) Despite there being no Petition in the 

record, however, Judge Pezze specifically explained each charge, and the possible 

maximum sentence that couJ<fbe ImPosed, to"toe"Appellant before he plead guilty to each" 

charge. (See Transcript of General Guilty Pleas, April 9, 2013, pp. 12-18.) 

In addition, Judge Pezze specificalJy asked the Appellant wbether he had had 

enough time to discuss the charges with his attorney, to discuss any defenses he may have 

to the charges, and to discuss the rights that he was giving up. Wben the Appellant asked 

for a few additional minutes [0 consult with his lawyer, she granted him the additional 

time before proceeding with the guilty plea colloquy. (See Transcript of General Guilty 

Pleas, April 9, 2013, p.12.) After consulting with counsel, the Appellant confirmed that 

he had had adequate time to consult with counsel about the charges he faced. Based upon 

our review of the guilty plea proceedings. we find the Appellant'S guilty plea to have 

been intelligently. voluntari1y and knowingly entered Into;" therefore, his firsfhllegation 

of error is without merit. 

The second basis upon which Appellant makes his claim is that he expressed his 

intention, prior to sentencing, to withdraw his guilty plea by writing a letter to the 

Honorable Debra A. Pezze. informing her that he did not believe that he should be 

pleading guilty. Again, there is no evidentiary record that supports this assertion, so this 

2 
Circulated 01/23/2015 03:04 PM ,- --

fact, coupled with the Appellant's statements at the sentencing proceeding, leads us to 

fInd that this second allegation of error is without merit. 

The third. and fInal. basis upon which Appellant makes his claim that the guilty 

plea was not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered is that the trial court failed 

to advise the Appellant of his post-sentence appeal rights. Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal 

Procedure No. 704(C)(3) directs the sentencing judge to detennine on the record that the 

defendant has been advised of his rights with regard to the flling of post-sentence motions 

and an appeal. Upon carefuirev(ewofthe record: we have not been able to find anyplace 

or time when the Appellant was advised of his post-sentence appeal rights, either during 

the guilty plea proceedings or at the time of sentencing. Accordingly, it appears that this 

Court. as the sentencing court. failed to comply with the directive under Rule 704(C)(3). 

BYTHEC 

ATTEST: 

Clerk of Courts 

cc; Michael Pacek, Esq. - for the Commonwealth 

./James M. Fox. Esq. - for the Defendant 

Court Administrator's Office 

3