Court Opinion

ID: 9772349
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:15:07.758634+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:49:59.398553
License: Public Domain

J-S23004-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  CORDELL CHASE                                :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 124 EDA 2023

     Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 21, 2022
            In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
            Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0010234-2021

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.:                          FILED AUGUST 29, 2023

       Cordell Chase appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the

Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia after Chase pled guilty to possession

of a controlled substance.1 Chase claims his guilty plea was not entered

knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. However, as Chase failed to preserve

the claim in the lower court, we find his claim waived and hereby affirm.

       On August 23, 2022, Chase entered a negotiated guilty plea to one count

of possessing a controlled substance in exchange for the Commonwealth’s

withdrawal of a charge for possession with intent to deliver a controlled

substance. See N.T., Guilty Plea Hearing, 8/23/2022, at 20-21. On December

____________________________________________

1 Chase admitted he had possessed three- and one-half grams of marijuana

and approximately five grams of cocaine base. See N.T., Guilty Plea
Hearing, 8/23/2022, at 22.
J-S23004-23

21, 2022, the trial court sentenced Chase to three years of probation

supervised by the drug and alcohol unit of the Philadelphia Adult Probation

and Parole Department. Chase did not file a post-sentence motion to withdraw

his guilty plea but filed this pro se appeal on January 3, 2023. Plea counsel

was permitted to withdraw his appearance, and the trial court appointed

present counsel to represent Chase on appeal.

      In his sole issue on appeal, Chase challenges the validity of his guilty

plea by claiming the plea was not made knowingly, voluntarily, and

intelligently. However, “[i]ssues not raised in the trial court are waived and

cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.” Pa.R.A.P. 302(a). To preserve

an issue related to the validity of his guilty plea, Chase was required to

“object[ ] at the sentence colloquy or otherwise raise[ ] the issue at the

sentencing hearing or through a post-sentence motion.” Commonwealth v.

D'Collanfield, 805 A.2d 1244, 1246 (Pa. Super. 2002) (citation omitted). A

failure to object during the plea colloquy or file a motion to withdraw the plea

within ten days of sentencing will result in waiver. See Commonwealth v.

Lincoln, 72 A.3d 606, 609–10 (Pa. Super. 2013). “The purpose of this waiver

rule is to allow the trial court to correct its error at the first opportunity, and,

in so doing, further judicial efficiency.” Commonwealth v. Monjaras-

Amaya, 163 A.3d 466, 469 (Pa. Super. 2017).

      In Monjaras-Amaya, the appellant failed to challenge the validity of

his guilty plea during his plea colloquy, nor did he file a post-sentence motion

                                       -2-
J-S23004-23

seeking to withdraw his plea. See id. Instead, Monjaras–Amaya raised the

claim in his Rule 1925(b) statement, at a point when the trial court was

without jurisdiction and could not grant relief. See id. This Court concluded

Monjaras-Amaya failed to preserve his claim before raising it in his Rule

1925(b) statement and, therefore, the issue was waived. See id.

      Like in Monjaras-Amaya, Chase did not object to the validity of his

guilty plea during his plea colloquy. Chase also failed to file a post-sentence

motion seeking to withdraw his plea. As such, the trial court was never given

the opportunity to correct the alleged errors with the plea. By raising the issue

for the first time in his Rule 1925(b), Chase failed to preserve his claim that

his guilty plea was not entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.

Therefore, we find the issue waived.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 8/29/2023

                                       -3-