Court Opinion

ID: 9368675
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-06 17:07:15.243203+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:08.790237
License: Public Domain

J-A05033-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    AHMAD J. THOMAS                            :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1406 EDA 2022

         Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 25, 2022
               In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County
                 Criminal Division at CP-15-CR-0003260-2020

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MURRAY, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY MURRAY, J.:                        FILED FEBRUARY 6, 2023

        Ahmad J. Thomas (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence

imposed after he entered a negotiated guilty plea to one count of attempted

murder and two counts of criminal conspiracy.1 Upon review, we grant the

Commonwealth’s application to cancel oral argument, strike the case from the

argument list, and affirm the judgment of sentence.

        On April 25, 2022, Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea to the

above crimes. The trial court immediately sentenced Appellant, in accordance

with the terms of the plea agreement, to an aggregate sentence of 18 – 40

years in prison. Appellant subsequently filed a post-sentence motion asking

the trial court to recommend to the Board of Prisons that he serve his sentence

____________________________________________

1   18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 901(a) and 903(a).
J-A05033-23

in a state prison close to his home. The trial court granted the motion on May

6, 2022.     Appellant never sought to withdraw his guilty plea.    This timely

appeal followed.2

        On January 9, 2023, Appellant filed a counseled appellate brief raising

four issues, all of which challenge the denial of Appellant’s suppression motion

prior to Appellant entering his guilty plea. See Appellant’s Brief at 3. On

January 19, 2023, the Commonwealth filed an application to cancel oral

argument because Appellant has not challenged “any of the four permissible

grounds” for appeal following the entry of a negotiated guilty plea. Application

to Cancel Oral Argument, 1/19/23, at 1-2 (unnumbered).

        “Generally, upon entry of a guilty plea, a defendant waives all claims

and defenses other than those sounding in the jurisdiction of the court, the

validity of the plea, and what has been termed the ‘legality’ of the sentence

imposed[.]”     Commonwealth v. Jabbie, 200 A.3d 500, 505 (Pa. Super.

2018) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “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.” Commonwealth v. Lincoln, 72 A.3d 606, 609-10 (Pa.

Super. 2013). “Failure to employ either measure results in waiver.” Id. at

610. “Historically, Pennsylvania courts adhere to this waiver principle because

____________________________________________

2   Appellant and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

                                           -2-
J-A05033-23

it is for the court which accepted the plea to consider and correct, in the first

instance, any error which may have been committed.” Id. (citation omitted);

see also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (issues not preserved in the trial court may not be

raised on appeal).

      Here, Appellant never sought to withdraw his guilty plea. Moreover, we

agree with the Commonwealth that Appellant has waived any challenge to the

trial court’s suppression ruling.     Lincoln, 72 A.3d at 609; see also

Commonwealth v. Percel, 107 A.3d 185, 197 n.14 (Pa. Super. 2014)

(appellant waived challenge to the denial of suppression by pleading guilty).

Because Appellant is precluded from challenging the denial of his suppression

motion, his appeal raising issues that pertain to suppression is wholly frivolous

and oral argument would be meaningless.            Accordingly, we grant the

Commonwealth’s application to cancel oral argument and strike the case from

the argument list.

      Application granted. Case stricken from argument list. Judgment of

sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 2/6/2023

                                      -3-