Court Opinion

ID: 9939570
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-10 17:11:08.494828+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:41:26.548340
License: Public Domain

J-S33046-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  LARRY SHAW, JR.                              :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 261 WDA 2023

            Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered February 1, 2023
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Division at
                       No(s): CP-26-CR-0000300-2020

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

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:                       FILED: February 8, 2024

       Larry Shaw, Jr. (Appellant),1 appeals from the post-conviction court’s

February 1, 2023 order dismissing his petition for relief filed under the Post

Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.         After careful review, we

affirm.

       This Court summarized the pertinent facts and procedural history

underlying this appeal, which was originally consolidated with Appellant’s

related appeals in three other cases, as follows:

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 In the notices of appeal and record, various forms of Appellant’s name were

used, i.e., “Larry Shaw Jr.,” “Larry Shaw,” and “Larry Franklin Jr. Shaw.” We
previously amended the caption for consistency, see Commonwealth v.
Shaw, 260-263 WDA 2023, unpublished memorandum at *2 n.1 (Pa. Super.
filed Oct. 24, 2023), and will use one version of Appellant’s name.
J-S33046-23

     Appellant seeks relief from an aggregate sentence of 5 to 11 years’
     incarceration, imposed on July 8, 2020, after he entered a … guilty
     plea in four separate criminal matters.

                                     ***

     A recitation of the underlying facts is not necessary to our
     disposition. Briefly, at a July 8, 2020[] proceeding, Appellant pled
     guilty to the following offenses: (1) at [CP-26-CR-0000591-2020
     (hereinafter “Trial Docket 591-2020”)], [to] simple assault and
     harassment; (2) at [CP-26-CR-0000300-2020 (hereinafter “Trial
     Docket 300-2020”)], [to] aggravated assault, persons not to
     possess firearms, terroristic threats, simple assault, and
     recklessly endangering another person; (3) at [CP-26-CR-
     0000288-2020 (hereinafter “Trial Docket 288-2020”)], [to]
     persons not to possess firearms, firearms not to be carried without
     a license, possession with intent to deliver controlled substances,
     possession of controlled substances, and possession of drug
     paraphernalia; and (4) at [CP-26-CR-0000575-2019 (hereinafter
     “Trial Docket 575-2019”)], [to] theft by deception.

     At the hearing, the trial court accepted the … plea agreement and
     then proceeded to sentence Appellant on each of the dockets. The
     court imposed a sentence of 5 to 10 years’ imprisonment for
     persons not to possess firearms at Trial Docket 300-2020, and a
     concurrent term of 4 to 10 years’ imprisonment for the same crime
     at Trial Docket 288-2020. See N.T., 7/8/20, at 11, 13. At Trial
     Docket 591-2020, the court imposed a term of 6 to 12 months’
     imprisonment for simple assault, to run consecutive to the
     sentence at Trial Docket 288-2020, and at Trial Docket 575-2019,
     the court imposed a concurrent sentence of 2½ to 5 years’
     imprisonment. See id. at 12. As will be discussed below, these
     sentences were to run concurrent to an unrelated matter at trial
     docket CP-26-CR-0000287-2020 (Trial Docket 287-2020).

     Appellant did not file a post-sentence motion to withdraw his plea
     or a direct appeal. Instead, on March 11, 2021, at Trial Docket
     300-2020, Appellant filed a pro se document titled “Motion to
     Modify and Reduce Sentence Nunc Pro Tunc.” No action was
     taken. Thereafter, on May 24th, he filed a timely[,] pro se PCRA
     petition. Attorney [James V.] Natale[, Esq.,] was appointed to
     represent Appellant and filed an amended PCRA petition on
     October 20, 2021, arguing [that] trial counsel was ineffective for
     failing to object when the court sentenced Appellant at Trial

                                    -2-
J-S33046-23

     Docket 300-2020, and for failing to file a direct appeal. See
     Appellant’s Amended Post Conviction Relief Act Petition,
     10/20/21, at 1-2 (unpaginated).         Appellant did not request
     permission to file a post-sentence motion nunc pro tunc. One
     week later, on October 27, 2021, the PCRA court entered an order
     granting Appellant’s request to file a direct appeal nunc pro tunc.
     On June 22, 2022, a panel of this Court affirmed Appellant’s
     judgment of sentence nunc pro tunc, and the Pennsylvania
     Supreme Court subsequently denied his petition for allowance of
     appeal. See Commonwealth v. Shaw, 1321 WDA 2021 (unpub.
     memo.) (Pa. Super. June 22, 2022), appeal denied, 200 WAL 2022
     (Pa. Oct. 25, 2022).

     Relevant to this appeal, the panel sua sponte pointed out a
     discrepancy in the record:

        The written guilty plea form indicates that Appellant was
        pleading guilty to various counts in the aforementioned
        cases, and would receive an aggregate sentence of 4 1/2
        to 11 years’ incarceration, consecutive to another sentence
        he had recently received. See Guilty Plea, 7/8/20. The
        Commonwealth reiterated this agreement at the
        commencement of the plea hearing. See N.T., 7/8/20, at 2
        (Commonwealth stating the plea “calls for a term of four
        and a half to eleven years consecutive to the sentence he
        just received on all four cases”). The court and its staff refer
        to the prior offense as “287 of 2020, which was [a] trial.”
        See id. at 11, 13.         Upon our independent review of
        Appellant’s Fayette County Court Summary, we confirmed
        that on July 6, 2020, Appellant was sentenced to a term of
        6 to 12 years for persons not to possess firearms at [Docket
        287-2020].

        As noted above, the court imposed a sentence of five to
        ten years’ imprisonment for the firearms offense in the
        present case. Initially, the court stated the sentence would
        run concurrently to the sentences for the other three pleas
        entered that day, as well as to [Docket 287-2020]. N.T.,
        7/8/20, at 13. Inexplicably, the court also stated: “I[f] our
        calculations are correct that should total four and a half
        to eleven years[,] which was the plea bargain consecutive
        to 300 of 2020.” Id. (emphasis added). However, the court
        then corrected itself and indicated the sentence sub judice
        would run “consecutive to 287 of 2020.” Id. To further
        complicate matters, the sentencing order in the certified

                                     -3-
J-S33046-23

       record states “this sentence shall run concurrent with the
       sentencing imposed at Nos. 287 of 2020; 288 of 2020; 591
       of 2020 and 575 of 2020.” Order, 7/8/20 (emphasis added).
       Thus, despite the agreement that Appellant would serve an
       aggregate term of 4 1/2 to 11 years’ imprisonment, it
       appears he was sentenced to an aggregate term of 5 to 11
       years’ imprisonment. Nevertheless, Appellant has not
       raised any challenge to his sentence on appeal.
     Shaw, 1321 WDA 2021 (unpub. memo. at 5 n.7) (emphasis in
     original).

     On October 27, 2022, Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition at
     Trial Dockets 591-2020, 288-2020, and 575-2019, raising
     ineffective assistance of counsel and legality of sentence claims
     based on the discrepancy pointed out by the prior panel. Attorney
     Natale was ultimately appointed to these dockets (in addition to
     Trial Docket 300-2020), and he filed an amended PCRA petition
     for each docket on December 19, 2022. That same day, Attorney
     Natale filed a PCRA petition at Trial Docket 300-2020 that was a
     duplicate of the other three petitions. In the petitions, he noted
     the discrepancy raised by this Court and stated:

       15. The Superior Court stated that although the plea bargain
       was for a sentence of [4.5] months to [11] years’
       consecutive to the sentence at Case No. 287 of 2020, the
       [trial c]ourt’s sentence at Case No. 300 of 2020 violated the
       terms of this plea bargain and results in an aggregate
       sentence of five . . . to [11] years[’] incarceration.

       16. If the Superior Court is correct, then [Appellant’s]
       sentence as currently structured violates the plea bargain,
       and therefore constitutes an illegal sentence.

     Appellant’s Amended Post-Conviction        Relief   Act   Petition,
     12/19/22, at 3 (unpaginated).

     The PCRA court scheduled a hearing which took place on January
     13, 2023. The court then issued an order and opinion on February
     1, 2023, which addressed all four dockets and denied Appellant’s
     PCRA petitions. Appellant filed four timely, separate notices of
     appeal and on May 24, 2023, this Court consolidated the appeals.
     See Order, 5/24/23.

                                   -4-
J-S33046-23

Shaw, 260-263 WDA 2023, unpublished memorandum at *2-8 (some

footnotes omitted).

       Appellant’s four appeals were assigned docket numbers 260 WDA 2023

(Trial Docket 591-2020), 261 WDA 2023 (Trial Docket 300-2020), 262 WDA

2023 (Trial Docket 288-2020), and 263 WDA 2023 (Trial Docket 575-2019).

Ultimately, Attorney Natale filed a petition to withdraw and Turner/Finley

‘no-merit’ letter in each case, concluding that Appellant’s issues were

meritless.2

       On October 24, 2023, this Court filed a memorandum decision affirming

the orders denying Appellant’s PCRA petitions, and granting Attorney Natale’s

petitions to withdraw, at docket numbers 260 WDA 2023, 262 WDA 2023, and

263 WDA 2023. See Shaw, 260-263 WDA 2023, unpublished memorandum

at *12-13.      Specifically, we concluded that Appellant’s petitions at those

docket numbers were untimely, and that he had failed to plead and prove any

timeliness exception. See id.; see also 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(1)(i)-(iii)

(requiring that a petition be filed within one year of the date the judgment of

sentence becomes final, or that the petitioner plead and prove the applicability

of an exception to that one-year timeliness requirement).

       However, regarding docket number 261 WDA 2023 (Trial Docket 300-

2020), this Court concluded that Appellant’s PCRA petition was timely, as he
____________________________________________

2 See Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), and
Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc).

                                           -5-
J-S33046-23

had been granted the right to file a direct appeal nunc pro tunc, and his

judgment of sentence had not become final until January 23, 2023.        See

Shaw, 260-263 WDA 2023, unpublished memorandum at *13. Accordingly,

we examined the merits of Appellant’s PCRA claims, first assessing his

argument “that [his] sentence is illegal because the trial court imposed a

sentence that violated his plea agreement.” Id. at *14. We concluded that

“Attorney Natale was correct that [t]his claim has no merit.     There is no

indication that the length of [Appellant’s] sentence at Trial Docket 300-2020

was illegal.” Id. at *16. Accordingly, we found Appellant’s first, legality of

sentencing claim was meritless.

     We then addressed Appellant’s second PCRA claim, in which he argued

that his “plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent” because “he was

not aware that the plea would increase the length of his aggregate sentence.”

Id. We rejected Attorney Natale’s conclusion that this claim was meritless,

noting two errors in Appellant’s sentencing/plea agreement.     First, “at the

sentencing proceeding, [the trial court] mistakenly stated the sentences were

to be imposed consecutively to Trial Court docket 287-2020[,] rather than

concurrently as reflected in the written sentencing orders.”   Id. at *18-19

(footnote omitted).   Second, there was a clear “incongruity regarding the

terms of the ‘bargained for’ sentence[,]” as the “written plea agreement …

called for a minimum aggregate sentence of 4 1/2 years but Appellant

received a minimum of 5 years due to the inclusion of Trial Court docket 300-

                                    -6-
J-S33046-23

2020 in the plea agreement, which increased the minimum of his aggregate

sentence to 5 years.” Id. at *19 (emphasis in original).

      Based primarily on the second error, we concluded that “it appears the

terms of the agreement were altered and Appellant did not receive the benefit

of the bargain.”   Id.     Finding that “the question of whether there was a

violation of the terms of Appellant’s plea bargain agreement” warranted “a

more exhaustive examination and perhaps further advocacy[,]” we denied

Attorney Natale’s petition to withdraw at docket 261 WDA 2023 and directed

him “to file with this Court an advocate’s brief analyzing the issue that we

have identified during our independent review or a proper Turner/Finley

brief addressing thoroughly why the claim identified herein has no merit.” Id.

at *20.

      On December 1, 2023, Attorney Natale filed an advocate’s brief on

Appellant’s behalf. Therein, he contends that

      the trial court[,] by running the five (5) to ten (10) year sentence
      of incarceration concurrent to Appellant’s six (6) years to twelve
      (12) years of incarceration in case No 287 of 2020, seems to have
      sought to have the sentence in this case expire before the
      sentence in Case No. 287 of 2020. However, the court[,] by
      arranging Appellant’s sentence in this [manner,] did not follow the
      plea bargain in the strictest sense, since Appellant had agreed to
      a four and a half (4 1/2) to eleven [(11)] year sentence of
      incarceration that was supposed to be run consecutive to his
      sentence in Case No. 287 of 2020. The trial court’s failure to
      sentence … Appellant specifically to the terms of the plea bargain
      constitutes a manifest injustice allowing Appellant to withdraw his
      plea agreement.

Appellant’s Brief at 12.

                                      -7-
J-S33046-23

       Again, this Court has determined that Appellant’s argument does not

constitute a non-waivable challenge to the legality of his sentence.         See

Shaw, 260-263 WDA 2023, unpublished memorandum at *16. Accordingly,

we must assess whether Appellant has waived his claim that the court failed

to sentence him in accordance with his plea and, therefore, he should be

permitted to withdraw it.

       In order to be eligible for PCRA relief, a petitioner bears the burden of

proving “[t]hat the allegation of error has not been previously litigated or

waived.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(3). Under the PCRA, “an issue is waived if the

petitioner could have raised it but failed to do so before trial, at trial, during

unitary review, on appeal or in a prior state post[-]conviction proceeding.” 42

Pa.C.S. § 9544(b).

       Here, Appellant never challenged the validity of his plea and/or sentence

in a timely, post-sentence motion.3 Additionally, Appellant did not request

permission from the PCRA court to file a post-sentence motion nunc pro tunc

in his October 20, 2021 PCRA petition requesting the reinstatement of his
____________________________________________

3 We recognize that Appellant filed an untimely, pro se post-sentence motion

on March 1, 2021, stating that he “did not plead guilty in this case” and that
his trial counsel acted ineffectively by not filing a timely post-sentence motion
or direct appeal to raise challenges to “the discretionary aspects of the
sentence imposed….” Pro se Motion to Modify and Reduce Sentence Nunc Pro
Tunc, 3/11/21, at 2 (unnumbered). The trial court erred by not treating this
filing as a PCRA petition and appointing counsel. See Commonwealth v.
Fantauzzi, 275 A.3d 986, 995 (Pa. Super. 2022) (stating that, “regardless of
how a petition is titled, courts are to treat a petition filed after a judgment of
sentence becomes final as a PCRA petition if it requests relief contemplated
by the PCRA”). However, we cannot correct that error in the present appeal,
which is from the denial of Appellant’s subsequent PCRA petition.

                                           -8-
J-S33046-23

direct appeal rights.    See Amended Post Conviction Relief Act Petition,

10/20/21, at 3 (unnumbered). Accordingly, the PCRA court did not reinstate

Appellant’s post-sentence motion rights, and no post-sentence motion was

filed nunc pro tunc.    In our disposition of Appellant’s nunc pro tunc direct

appeal, we concluded that his failure to file a post-sentence motion seeking to

withdraw his plea waived his argument that his plea was not knowing,

voluntary, and intelligent on grounds other than that which he raises herein.

See Shaw, No. 1321 WDA 2021, unpublished memorandum at *8, 9.

      The same is true instantly. It is well-settled that “the trial court is not

required to sentence a defendant in accordance with the plea agreement.”

Commonwealth v. Tann, 79 A.3d 1130, 1133 (Pa. Super. 2013). “Such a

sentence is legal, so long as it does not exceed the statutory maximum.

However, a criminal defendant who is sentenced to more than was agreed

upon in a negotiated plea may withdraw his guilty plea upon being deprived

of the benefit of his bargain.” Id. (citation omitted). Here, the trial court

sentenced Appellant outside the terms of the plea agreement, and it did not

deprive him of the opportunity to withdraw his plea. Instead, Appellant never

sought to withdraw his plea by filing a timely, post-sentence motion arguing

that his sentence violated the terms thereof. Accordingly, as Appellant could

                                      -9-
J-S33046-23

have raised this claim in proceedings prior to the instant PCRA, we are

compelled to deem his claim waived under section 9544(b).4

       Order affirmed.

       Judge McCaffery did not participate in the consideration or decision of

this case.

____________________________________________

4 We are aware that “a collateral petition to enforce a plea agreement is

regularly treated as outside the ambit of the PCRA and under the contractual
enforcement theory of specific performance.” Commonwealth v. Kerns,
220 A.3d 607, 611-12 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citations omitted; emphasis added).
However, in Kerns, the appellant was “not attempting to withdraw his open
guilty plea or attack its validity or the sentence of incarceration” but, instead,
he was “trying to enforce the plea agreement as written, because it ha[d] no
term in it about sex offender registration and [sexually violent predator]
designation.” Id. at 611. In contrast, here, Appellant seeks “to withdraw
his plea agreement[,]” not to simply enforce it. Appellant’s Brief at 12
(emphasis added). This might be due to the fact that enforcing the plea
agreement would result in a total, aggregate sentence of 10½ to 22 years’
incarceration (i.e., 4½ to 11 years’ imprisonment for the plea in this case,
running consecutively to the 6 to 12 year sentence at Trial Docket 287-
2020), whereas the aggregate sentence the court actually imposed totals just
6 to 12 years’ incarceration (i.e., 5 to 11 years’ incarceration for the plea in
this case, running concurrently with the 6 to 12 year sentence at Trial Docket
287-2020). As Appellant failed to file a timely, post-sentence motion to
withdraw his plea after he became aware, at the sentencing hearing, that the
court imposed an aggregate term of incarceration that did not align with the
plea agreement, he has waived his request to withdraw his plea at this
juncture.

                                          - 10 -
J-S33046-23

DATE: 2/8/2024

                 - 11 -