Court Opinion

ID: 9951184
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-15 18:10:32.584516+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:37:40.514012
License: Public Domain

J-A04018-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  GERALD MURRAY                                :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 571 EDA 2023

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 1, 2023
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Criminal Division
                     at No(s): CP-46-CR-0002797-2021

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  GERALD MURRAY                                :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 2227 EDA 2023

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 1, 2023
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Criminal Division
                     at No(s): CP-46-CR-0006847-2022

BEFORE:      STABILE, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.:                          FILED MARCH 15, 2024

       Gerald Murray appeals from the judgment of sentence entered for his

convictions for driving under the influence (“DUI”).1 Murray challenges the

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3802(a)(1) and 3802(c), respectively.
J-A04018-24

validity of his guilty plea. Murray waived any challenge to his guilty plea. We

therefore affirm.

      On February 1, 2023, Murray pleaded guilty to two counts of DUI. At the

plea hearing, the Commonwealth reviewed specific consequences of the plea

including that Murray’s driver’s license would be suspended. Defense counsel

asked Murray whether he understood the information on his written plea

colloquy and whether he agreed to plead guilty. Murray replied, “That’s

correct.” N.T., Guilty Plea Hearing, 2/1/23, at 4, 5. The written colloquy

included an explanation of Murray’s appellate rights and that he had the right

to file a post-sentence motion within 10 days. See Guilty Plea Colloquy, dated

2/1/23, at 4. The colloquy also informed Murray that if he wished to challenge

the validity of his plea, it needed to be included in his post-sentence motion.

Id. at 4-5. After the Commonwealth provided a factual summary of the

charges, the court accepted the plea and imposed concurrent sentences of six

months’ restrictive probation, the first 60 days to be served on house arrest.

See N.T., Guilty Plea Hearing, at 9-10. This timely appeal followed.

      Murray raises one issue on appeal: “Whether [Murray’s] consolidated

guilty plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary?” Murray’s Br. at 5.

      To preserve a challenge of the validity of a plea on direct appeal, a

defendant must raise the issue in the trial court either by filing a post-sentence

motion challenging the plea or objecting at the plea hearing. See

Commonwealth v. Lincoln, 72 A.3d 606, 609-10 (Pa.Super. 2013);

Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(A)(1) (post-sentence motion must be filed within 10 days of

                                      -2-
J-A04018-24

imposition of sentence), (B)(1)(a)(i) (post-sentence motion challenging

validity of guilty plea must be filed within 10 days of the imposition of

sentence).

      Here, Murray did not object at the plea hearing. He also did not file a

post-sentence motion challenging the validity of his plea. He therefore failed

to preserve his challenge to his guilty plea, and as such the issue is waived.

Therefore, we affirm the judgment of sentence. See Lincoln, 72 A.3d at 611

(concluding appellant failed to preserve challenge to validity of guilty plea

where he did not object during plea colloquy or file post-sentence motion to

withdraw plea).

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Date: 3/15/2024

                                    -3-