Court Opinion

ID: 9882247
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 16:25:17.561824+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:58.833785
License: Public Domain

J-S33045-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  JARRETT D. SAMUELS, JR.                      :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 168 WDA 2023

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 12, 2023
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer County Criminal Division at
                       No(s): CP-43-CR-0000343-2022

BEFORE:      BENDER, P.J.E., McCAFFERY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.:                      FILED: October 5, 2023

       Appellant, Jarrett D. Samuels, Jr., appeals from the judgment of

sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer County following

his negotiated guilty plea to the sole charge of aggravated assault, 18

Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(1). After a careful review, we affirm.

       The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows: Appellant was

charged with criminal attempt             (first-degree   murder),   two   counts of

aggravated assault, and recklessly endangering another person1 in connection

with the shooting of Tyreek Barnett. On October 11, 2022, Appellant, who

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 901(a), 2702(a)(1), 2702(a)(4), and 2705, respectively.
J-S33045-23

was represented by privately retained counsel, proceeded to a guilty plea

hearing.

      During the hearing, guilty plea counsel indicated he explained

Appellant’s rights to him, and Appellant understood those rights.       N.T.,

10/11/22, at 2-3. Guilty plea counsel confirmed Appellant executed a written

guilty plea.   Id. at 10.     The trial court advised Appellant that, if the

Commonwealth made a sentencing recommendation, and the trial court did

not accept the recommendation, Appellant would be permitted to withdraw

his guilty plea. Id. at 3. Appellant indicated he understood. Id. Appellant

also indicated he was not under the influence of any drugs, alcohol, or

medications. Id.

      The Commonwealth informed the trial court that the parties had reached

an agreement whereby Appellant would plead guilty to one count of

aggravated assault under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(1), and in exchange, the

Commonwealth would nolle pros the remaining charges as well as recommend

a sentence of six years to twenty years in prison with credit for time served

from March 20, 2022, to the time of sentencing. Id. at 4. Appellant confirmed

his understanding of the plea agreement, and he confirmed that, aside from

this plea agreement, no one had promised him anything or threatened him in

any manner. Id. Appellant specifically confirmed he was satisfied with the

services of guilty plea counsel. Id. at 6.

                                      -2-
J-S33045-23

       Appellant indicated he understood that if he went to trial the

Commonwealth “would have to convince a jury of 12 persons unanimously

and beyond a reasonable doubt…that [Appellant] caused serious bodily injury

to another intentionally, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances

manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life[, which] in this

case [was that Appellant] shot somebody.”        Id. Appellant confirmed he

understood he was pleading guilty to a “felony of the first degree[, which]

carries a maximum fine of $25,000 and a maximum of 20 years in a state

penitentiary.” Id.

       The following relevant exchange then occurred:

       [GUILTY PLEA COUNSEL]: [Appellant], do you admit that on or
       about March 20th of 2022, while in the City of Sharon, County of
       Mercer, you did intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly cause
       serious bodily injury to the victim, Tyreke (phonetic spelling)
       Barber [sic],[2] under circumstances manifesting extreme
       indifference to the value of human life by shooting the victim in
       his upper leg with a semi-automatic rifle?
       [APPELLANT]: Yes.
       THE COURT: Commonwealth satisfied?
       [DISTRICT ATTORNEY]: Yes, Your Honor.

____________________________________________

2 As discussed infra, Appellant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
During the evidentiary hearing on his motion, Appellant acknowledged that
the victim’s name is “Tyreek Barnett.” N.T., 12/6/2, at 5-6. However, he
confirmed at the evidentiary hearing that, when he entered his guilty plea and
defense counsel referred to “Tyreke (phonetic spelling) Barber,” he
understood counsel to be referring to “Tyreek Barnett.” Id.

                                           -3-
J-S33045-23

Id. at 7 (footnote added).3

       Based on the aforementioned, the trial court indicated that “[Appellant]

appearing before [the trial] court with counsel, and voluntarily, knowingly,

and intelligently entering a plea of guilty to one count of Aggravated Assault,

causing serious bodily injury with a deadly weapon, said plea is accepted.”

Id. at 9. The trial court noted the charge was a felony of the first degree in

violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2701(a)(1). Id.

       The    trial   court   acknowledged       the   Commonwealth’s   sentencing

recommendation of six years to twenty years in prison with credit for all time

served, and the trial court indicated that, in the event the trial court did not

accept the recommendation, Appellant would be permitted to withdraw his

guilty plea. Id. The trial court noted all remaining charges were nol prossed.

Id. Guilty plea counsel confirmed the guilty plea was “in [Appellant’s] best

interests.” Id. The trial court scheduled Appellant’s sentencing hearing for

November 9, 2022.

       Prior to the sentencing hearing, on November 1, 2022, guilty plea

counsel filed a motion to withdraw his representation. Therein, counsel

explained that “[Appellant] notified [guilty plea counsel] [indicating] that he

desires to withdraw his guilty plea…and no longer wants the services of [guilty

____________________________________________

3 We note the record reveals there is video footage of the crime, as well as

still images, which depict Appellant as driving a vehicle and shooting the victim
with a rifle pointing out of the vehicle’s window. N.T., 11/10/22, at 23-24.

                                           -4-
J-S33045-23

plea   counsel,    who   was       privately   retained].”    Motion    to    Withdraw

Representation, filed 11/1/22, at 1. Further, on or about November 2, 2022,

Appellant filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Therein, Appellant

relevantly indicated he desired to withdraw his guilty plea in order to “retain

[his] innocence,…retain his rights,…[and] to have more time to think and

analyze the circumstances [since he] feels [he] was pressured and forced by

counsel to do something [he] didn’t want to do[.]” Motion to Withdraw Guilty

Plea, filed 11/2/22, at 1.

       On November 8, 2022, the trial court held a hearing to address guilty

plea   counsel’s   petition   to    withdraw.    During      the   hearing,   Appellant

acknowledged there was video footage of the crime, but he stated that it “was

not [him]” in the subject vehicle who shot the victim. N.T., 11/10/22, at 25.

He stated that “[a]nybody could have been in [his] vehicle that day.” Id.

       Accordingly, at the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court granted

guilty plea counsel’s petition to withdraw as counsel and continued the matter

for the appointment of new defense counsel, as well as an evidentiary hearing

on Appellant’s presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea.                By order

entered on November 9, 2022, the trial court appointed new counsel to

represent Appellant.

       On December 6, 2022, Appellant, represented by new counsel,

proceeded to an evidentiary hearing on his presentence motion to withdraw

his guilty plea. Counsel confirmed he reviewed Appellant’s pro se motion, and

                                         -5-
J-S33045-23

Appellant “would like to proceed with withdrawing his guilty plea.”        N.T.,

12/6/22, at 3.

      At the hearing, Appellant confirmed that, during the guilty plea colloquy,

he admitted he shot Mr. Barnett, and “this was an honest answer.” Id. at 6.

However, Appellant indicated he would like to raise the issue of self-defense.

Id. That is, Appellant testified he “was admitting to shooting [Mr. Barnett],

but [he was] saying [he] would have self-defense[.]” Id.

      In support of his claim of self-defense, Appellant testified that, in 2014,

when he was in high school, Mr. Barnett, who was one of his classmates,

“flipped [him] out of [his] desk for no apparent reason.” Id. at 7. Appellant

indicated that over the last eight years Mr. Barnett attacked him on “Facebook

at wee hours in the morning” and sent him threatening texts. Id. at 8. He

noted that approximately one week before he shot Mr. Barnett, he read one

of Mr. Barnett’s Facebook posts wherein Mr. Barnett said he knew Appellant

had been with a certain female. Id. at 10. Appellant claimed Mr. Barnett

indicated in the Facebook post that “when he found [Appellant and the

woman] he was going to beat her ass and fuck [them] up, and you know,

even kill [them].” Id. Appellant testified Mr. Barnett made a similar Facebook

post one or two days before Appellant shot him. Id. Appellant admitted that,

aside from incidents occurring in 2014 while he and Mr. Barnett were seniors

in high school, no other physical altercations had occurred prior to Appellant

shooting Mr. Barnett on March 20, 2022. Id. at 12.

                                      -6-
J-S33045-23

          Regarding the incidents occurring on March 20, 2022, Appellant testified

one of his female friends called and asked him to give her a ride to the hospital.

Id. at 13. Appellant agreed and drove to her apartment building. Id. After

Appellant stopped his vehicle in front of the woman’s apartment, “[Mr.

Barnett] bolted out the door [of the residence]…[and] started approaching

[Appellant’s] car[.]” Id. Appellant testified Mr. Barnett threatened to “beat

his ass” and told him to get out of the car. Id. at 14. Appellant admitted he

“brandished” his gun so that Mr. Barnett could see it, and, since Mr. Barnett

would not stop making verbal threats, move away from Appellant’s car, or

stop “moving his hands in ways that were…confusing to [Appellant],”

Appellant “fired one shot into his leg, upper leg.” Id. Appellant admitted he

was not sure whether Mr. Barnett was armed; however, he “thought [he saw]

a silver handle of a gun” on Mr. Barnett. Id. at 15. Appellant stated he was

in fear for his life at the time, so he “took the first precaution,” which was to

shoot Mr. Barnett. Id.

          On cross-examination, when shown video footage from a camera that

recorded the shooting, Appellant admitted he was sitting in his vehicle, which

was in the middle of the street, when he shot Mr. Barnett. Id. at 17. Appellant

also admitted the video depicts him shooting Mr. Barnett with “a long rifle out

the window.” Id. at 18. Appellant admitted the rifle was “an AR-15 assault

rifle.”    Id. at 20.   Appellant admitted the video showed him stopping his

vehicle with the barrel of the rifle sticking out of the window, moving the

                                        -7-
J-S33045-23

vehicle forward five or six feet with the barrel of the rifle still out, stopping the

vehicle, and shooting Mr. Barnett, who was “still in the grass of the front yard

of the apartment building.” Id. at 28-29, 45. Appellant admitted Mr. Barnett

never made it out of the yard before Appellant shot him. Id. at 29.

      Appellant admitted the video does not depict any evidence that Mr.

Barnett was in possession of a weapon; however, Appellant testified he

thought he saw a gun in Mr. Barnett’s waistband when Mr. Barnett exited the

apartment’s door, which was out of view of the camera. Id. at 20. Appellant

clarified he thought he saw the victim with a gun in his waistband before

Appellant stopped his vehicle. Id. at 35, 45. When asked by the trial court

why he did not keep driving when he thought he saw Mr. Barnett with a gun

before he stopped his car, Appellant responded, “everything was just going so

fast, and that’s when [his female friend] literally got brought out the door.”

Id. at 45.

      Appellant admitted Mr. Barnett never pointed any gun at Appellant. Id.

at 26. Appellant specifically admitted that, when he fired his rifle, Mr. Barnett

did not have a gun or any other weapon in either of his hands. Id. at 21-22.

Appellant also admitted the video depicts him driving away immediately after

he shot Mr. Barnett, and he admitted he did not call the police after he shot

Mr. Barnett. Id. at 21-22, 42.

      Appellant admitted that, at the time of the shooting, Mr. Barnett was

dating one of Appellant’s ex-girlfriends; however, Appellant testified he had

                                        -8-
J-S33045-23

“moved on.” Id. at 22. He denied that when he shot Mr. Barnett in the leg

he was aiming for his genitals. Id. When asked by the Commonwealth “why

[Appellant] believe[d] it was necessary in self-defense to shoot [Mr. Barnett]

with an AR-15 rifle when he had no weapon in his hand[,]” Appellant replied

“[Mr. Barnett] could have pulled the gun and then boom, blew [Appellant’s]

brains out.” Id. at 31-32.

      Appellant testified that, before he entered his guilty plea, he advised his

guilty plea counsel that he had a claim of self-defense. Id. at 36. He testified

he did not tell the trial court during the guilty plea colloquy that he had a claim

of self-defense because guilty plea counsel pressured him not to do so. Id. at

37. Appellant admitted one of the reasons he entered a guilty plea was to

avoid a harsh sentence should he be convicted by a jury. Id. at 40.

      At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied

Appellant’s presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Specifically, the

trial court indicated it did “not credit some of [Appellant’s] testimony.” Id. at

56. However, the trial court further indicated that, even if it “believed every

word he said,” Appellant’s testimony, as a matter of law, would not establish

the elements for self-defense. Id. Thus, the trial court concluded Appellant

did not have a plausible claim of innocence based on self-defense. Id.

      On January 12, 2023, the trial court imposed the agreed upon sentence

of six years to twenty years in prison with credit for time served. Appellant

                                       -9-
J-S33045-23

filed a timely, counseled notice of appeal. All Pa.R.A.P. 1925 requirements

have been met.

      On appeal, Appellant sets forth the following issue in his “Statement of

Questions Involved” (verbatim):

      1. Whether the trial court erred in denying [Appellant’s] motion
         to withdraw his guilty plea prior to sentencing?

Appellant’s Brief at 4. We review the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s

presentence    motion    to   withdraw    his    guilty   plea     for   abuse   of

discretion.   Commonwealth        v. Baez,      169   A.3d   35,   39    (Pa.Super.

2017); Commonwealth v. Islas, 156 A.3d 1185, 1187 (Pa.Super. 2017).

      As this Court recently held:

            Where a defendant requests to withdraw his guilty plea
      before he is sentenced, the trial court has discretion to grant the
      withdrawal and that discretion is to be liberally exercised to permit
      withdrawal of the plea if two conditions are present: 1) the
      defendant demonstrates a fair and just reason for withdrawing the
      plea and 2) it is not shown that withdrawal of the plea would cause
      substantial prejudice to the Commonwealth. Commonwealth v.
      Carrasquillo, 631 Pa. 692, 115 A.3d 1284, 1291-92
      (2015); Baez, 169 A.3d at 39; Islas, 156 A.3d at 1188; see
      also Pa.R.Crim.P. 591(A) (“At any time before the imposition of
      sentence, the court may, in its discretion, permit, upon motion of
      the defendant,…the withdrawal of a plea of guilty or nolo
      contendere and the substitution of a plea of not guilty”)[.]

Commonwealth v. Jamison, 284 A.3d 501, 505 (Pa.Super. 2022).

      In the case sub judice, since there was no showing that withdrawal of

Appellant’s guilty plea would have prejudiced the Commonwealth, the sole

issue with respect to Appellant’s presentence motion to withdraw his guilty

                                     - 10 -
J-S33045-23

plea is whether Appellant satisfied the requirement that he demonstrate a fair

and just reason for withdrawing the plea.

      Appellant argues he demonstrated a fair and just reason because he

raised a plausible claim of innocence.      Specifically, Appellant contends he

acted in self-defense when he shot Mr. Barnett.

            A plausible claim of innocence, supported by some facts or
      evidence in the record, constitutes a fair and just reason for
      allowing presentence withdrawal of a guilty plea. Islas, 156 A.3d
      at 1191-92. Where, however, the defendant merely makes a bare
      assertion that he is innocent without any proffer of any supporting
      basis for that claim, the trial court in its discretion may deny
      withdrawal on the ground that the defendant has not shown a fair
      and just reason for withdrawal of the plea. Commonwealth v.
      Norton, 650 Pa. 569, 201 A.3d 112, 120-23 (2019);
      Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 632 Pa. 3, 116 A.3d 1103, 1105,
      1107 (2015); Baez, 169 A.3d at 39-41.

Jamison, 284 A.3d at 505 (some citations omitted). See Carrasquillo,

supra (holding a fair and just reason exists where the defendant makes a

claim of innocence that is plausible).

             “Stated more broadly, the proper inquiry on consideration
      of such a withdrawal motion is whether the accused has made
      some colorable demonstration, under the circumstances, such
      that permitting withdrawal of the plea would promote fairness and
      justice.” Norton, supra, 201 A.3d at 120-21[.] “[T]rial courts
      have discretion to assess the plausibility of claims of innocence.”
      Id. at 121.
            We review that exercise of discretion as follows:
                  When a [trial] court comes to a conclusion
            through the exercise of its discretion, there is a heavy
            burden [on the appellant] to show that this discretion
            has been abused. An appellant cannot meet this
            burden by simply persuading an appellate court that
            it may have reached a different conclusion than that
            reached by the trial court; rather, to overcome this

                                     - 11 -
J-S33045-23

           heavy burden, the appellant must demonstrate that
           the trial court actually abused its discretionary power.
           An abuse of discretion will not be found based on a
           mere error of judgment, but rather exists where the
           [trial] court has reached a conclusion which overrides
           or misapplies the law, or where the judgment
           exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of
           partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will. Absent an abuse
           of that discretion, an appellate court should not
           disturb a trial court’s ruling.
                                     ***
                  [I]t is important that appellate courts honor trial
           court’s discretion in these matters, as trial courts are
           in the unique position to assess the credibility of
           claims of innocence and measure, under the
           circumstances, whether defendants have made
           sincere and colorable claims that permitting
           withdrawal of their pleas would promote fairness and
           justice.
     Norton, supra, 201 A.3d at 120, 121 (citations omitted).
            The trial court’s discretion, however, is not unfettered.
     “[T]he term ‘discretion’ imports the exercise of judgment, wisdom
     and skill so as to reach a dispassionate conclusion, within the
     framework of the law, and is not exercised for the purpose of
     giving effect to the will of the judge.” Id. at 121[.] The trial court
     must be mindful that the law requires trial courts to grant
     presentence plea withdrawal motions liberally and make credibility
     determinations supported by the record. Id. The trial courts in
     exercising their discretion must recognize that before judgment,
     the courts should show solicitude for a defendant who wishes to
     undo a waiver of all constitutional rights that surround the right
     to trial—perhaps the most devastating waiver possible under our
     constitution. Finally, this Court must not substitute its judgment
     for that of the trial court; rather, we must discern whether the
     trial court acted within its permissible discretion. Norton, supra,
     201 A.3d at 121.

Commonwealth v. Garcia, 280 A.3d 1019, 1023-23 (Pa.Super. 2022) (some

quotation marks and quotations omitted).

                                    - 12 -
J-S33045-23

      Here, in explaining the reasons it denied Appellant’s presentence motion

to withdraw his guilty plea, the trial court relevantly indicated the following:

            In the present case, [Appellant] argues the [trial] court
      committed an error of law in denying [Appellant’s] motion to
      withdraw his guilty plea prior to sentencing. “A defendant is
      bound by the statements which he makes during his plea
      colloquy[,]…a defendant ‘may not assert grounds for withdrawing
      the plea that contradict statements made when he pled guilty,’
      and he may not recant the representations he made in court when
      he entered his guilty plea.” [Commonwealth v. Jabbie, 200 A.3d
      500, 506 (Pa.Super. 2018) (citations omitted).]
             At the [guilty plea] hearing on October 11, 2022, [Appellant]
      agreed he intentionally, knowingly, and recklessly caused bodily
      injury to the victim under circumstances manifesting extreme
      indifference to the value of human life by shooting the victim in
      the upper leg with a semi-automatic rifle without any mention of
      self-defense. [N.T., 10/11/22, at 7.] [During the November 10,
      2022, hearing regarding privately retained counsel’s petition to
      withdraw his representation, Appellant contradicted his
      statements, which he made at the guilty plea hearing.
      Specifically, Appellant] proclaimed his innocence but made no
      assertion of self-defense. [Rather,] at the November 10, 2022,
      hearing, [pointing to the video footage of the crime,] [Appellant]
      proclaimed his innocence by stating “that’s not me” and
      “[a]nybody could have been in that vehicle that day[.]” [N.T.,
      11/10/22, at 25.] [Appellant] did not assert self-defense; he
      denied all involvement [at the November 10, 2022, hearing]….At
      the [evidentiary] hearing [regarding his motion to withdraw his
      guilty plea] on December 6, 2022, [Appellant] asserted a claim of
      self-defense.
            [At the December 6, 2022, hearing,] on direct examination,
      [Appellant] first stated the victim verbally threatened him, but he
      remained unsure of whether the victim brandished a weapon.
      Next, [Appellant] stated he was sure he saw the victim holding
      something silver but wasn’t sure if he saw a weapon or not. Next,
      [Appellant] stated he thought he saw the silver handle of a gun.
      On cross-examination, [Appellant] stated he was certain the
      victim brandished something. Next, [Appellant] stated the victim
      showed him a gun in his waistband, but he claimed all actions
      taken by the victim occurred prior to the victim entering camera

                                     - 13 -
J-S33045-23

     view. [Appellant] then stated the victim was not brandishing
     anything when [Appellant] shot the victim.
           Under Carrasquillo, supra, [Appellant] has failed to
     demonstrate a fair and just reason for withdrawing the plea. The
     video [footage] on record shows [Appellant] driving towards the
     victim, who was on foot, with the barrel of his rifle already out the
     window, stopping, repositioning the vehicle for a better angle,
     aiming a rifle out the window, shooting the victim, and driving
     away. [Appellant] does not dispute the contents of the video.
     Thus, [Appellant] has failed to articulate a colorable self-defense
     claim or demonstrate any alternative fair and just reason for
     withdrawing the plea.
            In order to sustain a claim of self-defense, an individual
     must prove the following: “(1) reasonably believed that force was
     necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily
     injury; (2) was free from fault in provoking the use of force against
     him; and (3) did not violate any duty to retreat.”
     [Commonwealth v. Miller, 172 A.3d 632, 640 (Pa.Super. 2017)
     (citation omitted).] The record contains a video of [Appellant] in
     his car approaching the victim, parking in the middle of the street,
     pointing a rifle out the driver’s side window of the vehicle, and
     shooting the victim. [Appellant] has made admissions of his
     involvement in the shooting and to the accuracy of the video
     [during the guilty plea hearing].
           Under the first prong of the test established in Miller,
     [Appellant] has failed to provide any evidence to support a claim
     of reasonable belief that force was necessary to protect himself
     against death or serious bodily injury. During every moment of
     the video, [Appellant] was in his car in the middle of the street
     with nothing to impede or encumber his escape and the victim
     was on foot. [Appellant] could have simply driven away from the
     scene to avoid any potential risk of death or serious bodily injury
     from the victim.
           Under the second prong of the test established in Miller,
     [Appellant] has failed to provide any evidence to support a claim
     that [Appellant] was free from fault in provoking the use of force
     against him. The video provides a clear view of the incident for
     the entire duration of this incident and establishes [Appellant]
     approached the victim without any present provocation, parked
     his vehicle in the middle of the road (where [Appellant] had clear
     sight of the victim), aimed a rifle, and shot the victim. [Appellant]
     was the aggressor at all times during the incident.

                                    - 14 -
J-S33045-23

             Under the third prong of the test established in Miller,
       [Appellant] has failed to provide any evidence to support a claim
       that [Appellant] fulfilled a duty to retreat. As stated above,
       [Appellant] was in his car in the middle of the street with nothing
       to impede or encumber his escape. The records shows no
       evidence whatsoever demonstrating [Appellant] made any
       attempt to retreat.      The record shows [Appellant] was the
       antagonist at all times and failed to fulfill the duty to retreat
       requisite for the survival of a self-defense claim.
                                           ***
              [Appellant] has failed to assert a plausible claim of
       innocence or supporting facts or evidence which may establish a
       fair and just reason for the allowance of presentence withdrawal
       of his guilty plea. [Appellant] has failed to provide any facts or
       evidence whatsoever to support his claim and makes only a barren
       claim lacking any substantiation. Due to [Appellant’s] failure to
       provide any supporting basis of his innocence claim, the [trial]
       court was within its authority to deny withdrawal on the grounds
       of a defendant’s failure to establish a fair and just reason for
       withdrawal of a plea. Thus, [his] argument holds no merit.

Trial Court Opinion, filed 3/8/23 (footnotes omitted).4

       We find no abuse of discretion. Norton, supra. As the trial court noted,

Appellant admitted during the October 11, 2022, guilty plea hearing that he

“intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly” shot the victim with a semi-automatic

rifle. N.T., 10/11/22, at 7. He is bound by these statements and cannot now

assert challenges to his plea that contradict these statements. See Jamison,

supra.

       Further, in assessing the plausibility of Appellant’s claim of innocence

based on self-defense, the trial court properly considered the strength of the

____________________________________________

4 We note the trial court opinion is unpaginated.

                                          - 15 -
J-S33045-23

Commonwealth’s evidence (including video footage and still photographs of

the crime) in relation to the nature of Appellant’s claim (consisting solely of

Appellant’s testimony, which the trial court found contradictory and incredible,

in part, and, in any event, even if wholly believed, would not meet establish

self-defense as a matter of law). See Garcia, 280 A.3d at 1027; Islas, 156

A.3d at 1190.

      Additionally, in considering the plausibility of Appellant’s claim of

innocence, the trial court properly considered the timing of Appellant raising

the claim of self-defense. See id. Specifically, after Appellant admitted he

was the shooter during the October 11, 2022, guilty plea hearing, he then

proclaimed he was not the shooter during the November 10, 2022, hearing.

Thereafter, despite having several opportunities to do so, Appellant raised the

claim of innocence based on self-defense during the December 6, 2022,

evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, considering the totality of the circumstances,

the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding Appellant’s claim of

self-defense was not a fair and just reason for presentence withdrawal of

Appellant’s guilty plea. See id.

      For all of the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

      Affirmed.

                                     - 16 -
J-S33045-23

 10/5/2023

              - 17 -