Court Opinion

ID: 9364184
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-18 17:07:09.133638+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:36.442080
License: Public Domain

J-S44033-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    ANDREW NATHANIEL BINGHAM                   :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 494 MDA 2022

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 17, 2022
      In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Criminal Division at
                        No(s): CP-40-CR-0001380-2021

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.:                         FILED JANUARY 18, 2023

        Andrew Nathaniel Bingham (Bingham) appeals from the judgment of

sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County (trial

court). He argues that the trial court erred in denying his request to withdraw

a plea as to one count of aggravated assault because the plea was rendered

involuntary by the Commonwealth’s non-performance of a material term of

his negotiated plea agreement – the return of Bingham’s television. Because

the claim is unpreserved for appeal and otherwise without merit, we affirm.

        In 2021, while already incarcerated, Bingham was charged with

aggravated assault (18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(3)) and aggravated harassment by

a prisoner (18 Pa.C.S. § 2703.1)). Prior to the scheduled trial date, Bingham

____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S44033-22

entered a negotiated agreement wherein Bingham would plead guilty to the

aggravated assault count in exchange for an unspecified sentence.           The

remaining charge would be withdrawn, and the Commonwealth agreed to

recommend for the sentence to be made concurrent to the sentence he was

already serving.

      At the plea hearing, Bingham’s counsel stated that he believed that

there “was an agreement with the District Attorney’s Office” that a television

confiscated from Bingham by prison staff would be returned upon the entry of

the guilty plea.   Plea Hearing Transcript, 12/16/2021, at p. 3.       Counsel

conceded, however, that the trial court had no power to direct the Department

of Corrections to return the television. Although neither the trial court, trial

counsel, nor the Commonwealth had reason to believe that Bingham’s request

for his television would be denied, the trial court emphasized that any decision

to return the television was “obviously up to” the Department of Corrections

and not the trial court. Id. at p. 4.

      The plea colloquy resumed and Bingham stated that he had been given

a chance to discuss and review all pertinent matters with counsel, “including

the written plea agreement.” He stated that counsel had answered all his

questions and that he would stipulate to the factual basis for the plea.

Bingham stated that he had no questions about the terms of his plea and that

he fully understood what he was agreeing to. The trial court then accepted

Bingham’s guilty plea.

                                        -2-
J-S44033-22

      However, about two months later, Bingham appeared remotely at his

sentencing hearing, requesting for the first time to withdraw his plea. See

Sentencing Hearing Transcript, 2/17/2022, at p. 2. The prison had not

approved Bingham’s television request, and he insisted that he had only

pleaded guilty to the aggravated assault count because he believed that the

television would be returned.

      In between the date of the plea hearing and the sentencing hearing,

Bingham’s counsel had withdrawn from representing him in the case and new

counsel had been retained to represent him.         Bingham’s new counsel

acknowledged that Bingham lacked any valid grounds to withdraw his guilty

plea. The Commonwealth also stressed that there was nothing in the written

plea agreement about a television and that, in any event, only the Department

of Corrections would have authority to determine whether Bingham could have

his television back.

      While still represented by counsel, Bingham argued directly to the trial

court that he should be permitted to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial

because his prior counsel had misadvised him about being entitled to the

television pursuant to the plea. Bingham also suggested that he was innocent

of the aggravated assault charge, as it had resulted from a conspiracy among

his prison guards to incriminate him.

      The trial court denied Bingham’s request to withdraw the guilty plea.

Although the trial court recalled discussions about the television at the plea

                                    -3-
J-S44033-22

hearing, the trial court found that the television had not been a material

condition of the plea agreement.          To the contrary, Bingham had been

specifically advised at the plea hearing that the trial court did not have

authority to order the return of the television to him.

         Bingham responded by ceasing his participation in the sentencing and

the hearing continued in his absence. He was sentenced to a prison term of

30-60 months and advised (in absentia) that he could file a post-sentence

motion challenging the denial of his request to withdraw his plea within ten

days of the date of the hearing. Bingham did not file a post-sentence motion,

instead opting to file a notice of appeal as to the judgment of sentence.

         In his 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal, Bingham

challenged the trial court’s order denying his request to withdraw the guilty

plea. In response, the trial court prepared a written opinion, reasoning that

the return of Bingham’s television was not a material term of his plea. See

Trial Court Opinion, 4/28/2022, at 3-4. Bingham now asserts one issue in his

brief:

         Did the trial court err or abuse its discretion by failing to grant
         [Bingham’s] pre-sentence request to withdraw his guilty plea
         where the guilty plea was entered and induced upon a plea
         agreement including a material term that either could not or was
         refused to be fulfilled, thus rendering the [Bingham’s] plea
         involuntary?

Appellant’s Brief, at 2.

         The sole issue raised on appeal is waived because in order to preserve

a challenge to the validity of a plea, there must be either a valid objection at

                                        -4-
J-S44033-22

sentencing or a post-sentence motion filed within ten days of the sentencing.

See Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(A)(1), (B)(1)(a)(i); see also Commonwealth v.

Tareila, 895 A.2d 1266, 1270 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2006).

      Since Pennsylvania prohibits hybrid representation, see generally

Commonwealth v. Vinson, 249 A.3d 1197, 1201 (Pa. Super. 2021), and

Bingham made his oral request to withdraw pro se at a time when he was

represented by counsel, the request was a nullity. See Commonwealth v.

Nischan, 928 A.2d 349 (Pa. Super. 2007) (deeming post-sentence motion a

nullity with no legal effect because it was filed pro se by a counseled

defendant).

      Further, despite being advised of the need to raise the claim in a post-

sentence motion, Bingham waited until after the filing of his notice of appeal

to challenge the trial court’s ruling on his request to withdraw the plea. Thus,

the claim was waived because a “Rule 1925(b) statement of matters

complained of on appeal is not a vehicle in which issues not previously

asserted may be raised for the first time.” See Commonwealth v. Pardoe,

133 A.3d 738, 746 (Pa. Super. 2016) (quoting Glenbrook Leasing Co. v.

Beausang, 839 A.2d 437, 444 9Pa. Super. 2003)).

      Even assuming that Bingham preserved his sole issue for our review, it

would be unavailing because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in

denying Bingham’s request to withdraw his plea. The Pennsylvania Rules of

Criminal Procedure provide that, “[a]t any time before the imposition of

                                     -5-
J-S44033-22

sentence, the court may, in its discretion, permit, upon motion of the

defendant . . . the withdrawal of a plea of guilty . . . and the substitution of a

plea of not guilty.”   Pa.R.Crim.P. 591(A).    Such a motion may be granted

where “the accused has made some colorable demonstration, under the

circumstances, such that permitting withdrawal of the plea would promote

fairness and justice.”   Commonwealth v. Norton, 201 A.3d 112, 120-21

(Pa. 2019).

      Here, Bingham’s written plea agreement does not at all reference that

his television would be returned as a condition of the plea.           See Plea

Agreement, 12/16/2021. At the time the plea agreement was signed, the trial

court verbally inquired whether Bingham had reviewed the document with

counsel, and Bingham responded that he had done so. See Transcript of Plea

Hearing, 12/16/2021, at p. 5. Both the Commonwealth and the trial court (as

well as Bingham’s counsel) stressed to him that the trial court did not have

the authority to direct the Department of Corrections to return Bingham’s

television to him while he was still serving his prison term.

      Bingham then voluntarily entered his counseled guilty plea after

acknowledging the terms of the agreement and stating that he understood

everything that had been explained to him at the colloquy.            The record

                                      -6-
J-S44033-22

establishes that the trial court’s colloquy of Bingham fully comported with the

requirements of a knowing and voluntary plea.1

       In light of these facts, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s

determination that Bingham failed to make a colorable demonstration as to

why the withdrawal of his plea would promote fairness and justice. The order

on review must, therefore, stand.

       Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 01/18/2023

____________________________________________

1 Under Pa.R.Crim.P. 590, a trial court’s colloquy of a defendant must include
inquiries into whether the defendant understands the nature of the subject
charges; whether there is a factual basis for the plea; whether the defendant
understands the right to a jury trial; whether the defendant understands the
presumption of innocence; whether the defendant is aware of the applicable
sentencing ranges; and whether the defendant is aware that the trial court is
not bound by plea agreements between the defendant and the prosecution.
See Commonwealth v. Flood, 627 A.2d 1193, 1197 (Pa. Super. 1993). The
trial court’s colloquy of Bingham in this case covered all these required areas
of inquiry. Any misunderstanding Bingham may have had prior to entering
his plea about his entitlement to his television would have been clarified by
the trial court, counsel and the prosecution at the plea hearing.

                                           -7-