J-S67007-17

____________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF 

PENNSYLVANIA

v.

WILLIAM STANCIL 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 821 EDA 2017

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 5, 2016

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

No(s): CP-51-CR-0011116-2014

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., MUSMANNO, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED NOVEMBER 02, 2017

Appellant, William Stancil, appeals nunc pro tunc from the judgment of 

sentence of 27 to 55 years’ incarceration entered in the Court of Common 

Pleas of Philadelphia County pursuant to the terms Appellant agreed to in his 

negotiated plea deal. Herein, Appellant contends his plea was involuntary 

because he was not advised during his oral colloquy of the presumption of his 

innocence, and he requests a remand of this matter for trial. We affirm.

The trial court’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion sets forth the factual and 

procedural history as follows:

The factual basis proffered by the Commonwealth for defendant’s 

[hereinafter “Appellant”] guilty plea established the following: On 

June 21, 2014, at around midnight, in the area of Rosalie Street 

and Colgate Street in Philadelphia, Appellant and Darryl Plowden 

approached Jose Rivera in order to rob Rivera at gunpoint. When 

Rivera attempted to run away, Appellant pulled out a gun, which 

he was not licensed to carry, and shot Rivera one time in the 
J-S67007-17

- 2 -

chest. Rivera collapsed a short distance away. Appellant and 

Plowden then took several items from Rivera’s person, including a 

necklace that had a “J” for Jose on it. Appellant and Plowden then 

fled the scene. Rivera was pronounced dead and his body taken 

to the Medical Examiner’s Office. There, it was determined that 

Rivera was killed by a gunshot wound to the chest. N.T. 1/5/16 

at 30-31.

Based on a police investigation, Appellant was brought to the 

Philadelphia Homicide Unit in August, 2014. After being given 

Miranda[fn] warnings and waiving his right to remain silent as well 

as his right to an attorney, Appellant confessed to the 

abovementioned facts. In addition, Appellant agreed to be 

videotaped and gave a confession on video. N.T. 1/5/16 at 31-

32.

[fn. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).]

***

On January 5, 2016, Appellant pled guilty, pursuant to a 

negotiated guilty plea, to one count each of third degree murder 

(18 Pa.C.S. § 2502), robbery (18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(1)(i)), 

criminal conspiracy (18 Pa.C.S. § 903), and possessing an 

instrument of crime (18 Pa.C.S. § 907).... That day, the court 

imposed the negotiated aggregate sentence of 27 to 55 years’ 

incarceration in state prison. 

[On January 18, 2016, Appellant filed an untimely Motion to 

Withdraw his guilty plea, which was denied by operation of law on 

May 18, 2016. Appellant then filed an untimely Notice of Appeal 

to the Superior Court, which quashed the appeal on October 3, 

2016. Appellant thereafter obtained reinstatement of his postsentence motion and direct appeal rights nunc pro tunc through 

the vehicle of the PCRA. On February 17, 2017, Appellant filed a 

timely post-sentence motion seeking withdrawal of his guilty plea, 

but the lower court denied the motion.] 

Appellant has now appealed, raising the sole claim that “[his] 

guilty plea was not voluntary because he was not orally advised 

of his pretrial rights (including presumption of innocence) and 
J-S67007-17

- 3 -

limited appellate rights and manifest injustice has occurred as a 

result of [his] not being allowed to withdraw his plea because he 

maintains his innocence.” [Appellant’s Statement of Matters 

Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)].

Trial Court Opinion, filed April 3, 2017, at 1-3.

Appellant presents the following question for our review:

SHOULD APPELLANT HAVE BEEN PERMITTED TO WITHDRAW HIS 

GUILTY PLEA WHEN HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE 

PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE DURING HIS ORAL GUILTY PLEA 

COLLOQUY AND WHEN THE PLEA CONSTITUTES MANIFEST 

INJUSTICE?

Appellant’s brief at 4.

We review a trial court's denial of a motion to withdraw a plea for an 

abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Miller, 748 A.2d 733, 735 

(Pa.Super. 2000). This Court has stated:

[P]ost-sentence motions for withdrawal are subject to higher 

scrutiny since courts strive to discourage entry of guilty pleas as 

sentence-testing devices. A defendant must demonstrate that 

manifest injustice would result if the court were to deny his postsentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea. 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. A deficient plea does not per se establish 

prejudice on the order of manifest injustice.

Id. at 129 (internal citations and quotations marks omitted) (alteration in 

original).

Further, this Court has stated:

The Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure mandate pleas be 

taken in open court and require the court to conduct an on-therecord colloquy to ascertain whether a defendant is aware of his 

rights and the consequences of his plea. Commonwealth v. 

Hodges, 789 A.2d 764, 765 (Pa.Super. 2002) (citing Pa.R.Crim.P. 
J-S67007-17

- 4 -

590). Under Rule 590, the court should confirm, inter alia, that a 

defendant understands: (1) the nature of the charges to which he 

is pleading guilty; (2) the factual basis for the plea; (3) he is giving 

up his right to trial by jury; (4) and the presumption of innocence; 

(5) he is aware of the permissible ranges of sentences and fines 

possible; and (6) the court is not bound by the terms of the 

agreement unless the court accepts the plea. Commonwealth 

v. Watson, 835 A.2d 786 (Pa.Super. 2003). The reviewing 

[c]ourt will evaluate the adequacy of the plea colloquy and the 

voluntariness of the resulting plea by examining the totality of the 

circumstances surrounding the entry of that plea. 

Commonwealth v. Muhammad, 794 A.2d 378 (Pa.Super. 

2002). 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. Pollard, supra.

Commonwealth v. Kpou, 153 A.3d 1020, 1023–24 (Pa.Super. 2016) 

(quoting Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 351–54 (Pa.Super. 

2014), impliedly overruled on other grounds by Commonwealth v. 

Hvizda, 116 A.3d 1103, 1106 (Pa. 2015)).

Appellant claims that his plea was involuntary because he was not 

informed during his oral colloquy that he was presumed innocent until the 

finder of fact found otherwise. This claim is without merit. 

Taking into consideration the totality of circumstances bearing on this 

claim, we note that Appellant reviewed with counsel his written plea colloquy, 

which explained his rights and included a statement on its first page stating 

“I am presumed innocent. That means that I start out innocent—and stay 

innocent unless the District Attorney proves I committed the crime(s).” 

Written Guilty Plea Colloquy, at 1). Appellant initialed that page and signed 

the written plea colloquy on the last page. 
J-S67007-17

- 5 -

Moreover, during the oral colloquy, Appellant was apprised that “if you 

choose to go by way of jury trial, [the prosecutor] would call witnesses and 

bear the burden of proving you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” N.T. 

1/5/16 at 13. Appellant was also informed that only if a jury unanimously 

agreed he was guilty of the charges could he be convicted. N.T. at 14. 

Appellant confirmed that he understood his rights and was satisfied with his 

counsel’s assistance. 

Although the words “presumption of innocence” were never uttered 

during Appellant’s plea hearing, such an omission did not render his plea 

colloquy defective. See Commonwealth v. Best, 480 A.2d 1245, 1248 

(Pa.Super. 1984) (stating failure of trial court to “specifically advise” 

defendant he or she is presumed innocent does not render plea colloquy 

defective where colloquy otherwise conveyed both Commonwealth’s burden 

of proof and necessity of unanimous jury). Therefore, given our review of 

Appellant’s written and oral plea colloquies, we agree with the trial court that 

Appellant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered his guilty plea. 

Accordingly, there was no manifest injustice in the lower court’s order denying 

Appellant’s post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

Judgment of sentence is AFFIRMED.
J-S67007-17

- 6 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/2/2017