Court Opinion

ID: 9892414
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-23 18:11:32.031401+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:05:15.891790
License: Public Domain

J-S38041-23

    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    CARL E. JOHNSON, JR.                       :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1388 EDA 2023

          Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 20, 2023
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Criminal Division
                       at No(s): CP-46-CR-0003681-2021

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.:                         FILED OCTOBER 23, 2023

       Carl E. Johnson, Jr. (Johnson) appeals from the judgment of sentence

imposed in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County (trial court)

following his entry of an open guilty plea to aggravated assault and driving

while operating privilege is suspended or revoked (DUS).1 On appeal, Johnson

challenges the validity of his guilty plea. We affirm.

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(3) (attempts to cause or causes bodily injury), 75
Pa.C.S. § 1543(b)(1.1)(i) (driving with blood alcohol content of 0.02% or
greater while license suspended).
J-S38041-23

                                       I.

                                       A.

      The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. On

May 9, 2021, Police Officer Andrew Bixler of the Norristown Police Department

stopped Johnson’s vehicle after he observed him racing with another car and

committing multiple traffic violations. During the stop and ensuing altercation,

Johnson ignored Officer Bixler’s commands, repeatedly struck him in the face

and grabbed his throat, obstructing his airway. Backup officers responded to

the scene and were eventually able to gain control of Johnson and take him

into custody. The incident was recorded on police body video cameras. The

Commonwealth charged Johnson with several offenses including two counts

of aggravated assault, strangulation, terroristic threats, driving under the

influence of alcohol and resisting arrest.

      Johnson pled guilty to aggravated assault and DUS on September 28,

2022, the day that his jury trial was scheduled to begin. In exchange, the

Commonwealth nolle prossed the remaining charges. During the guilty plea

hearing, Johnson averred that in lieu of going to trial, he had decided to plead

guilty in accordance with the plea agreement offered by the Commonwealth.

(See N.T. Plea Hearing, 9/28/22, at 6). The trial court advised Johnson of his

rights and those he was giving up, including the presumption of innocence and

his right to testify at trial. Johnson confirmed that he reviewed the written

guilty plea colloquy with his attorney and that he understood all of the

                                      -2-
J-S38041-23

questions and answered them truthfully. During the colloquy with the trial

court, Johnson affirmed that no one forced, coerced or offered him anything

to enter the plea, and that he had made the decision of his own free will. (See

id. at 9-10).

      The Commonwealth then reviewed the factual basis for the plea, as

follows:

      Q. So you struck Officer Bixler multiple times; is that correct?

      A. I don’t remember that.

      Q. In watching the videos with your attorney, did you observe
      yourself striking Officer Bixler multiple times?

      A. I mostly found myself—I held onto him. I got a bad knee and
      I was going to fall. He went to throw me to fall, that’s when I
      grabbed onto him. I wasn’t trying to fight him.

                       [Discussion held off the record].

      Q. And you understand that did cause Officer Bixler bodily injury?

      A. (No response.)

      Q. Do you understand that caused Officer Bixler —

      A. Yes.

      Q. — bodily injury?

      A. Yes.

(Id. at 12-13).

      In his written guilty plea, Johnson admitted that he “did all the things a

person must have done to be guilty of the crime or crimes to which [he is]

pleading guilty” and that he understood that his plea “is based on factual

                                     -3-
J-S38041-23

accusations placed in writing by the police and sworn to before a District

Justice[.]” (Written Guilty Plea, 9/28/22, at 3, 6). Johnson averred that he

was entering the plea of his own free will and that the decision to enter it was

his alone. (See id. at 5-6).

                                        B.

      The trial court accepted Johnson’s guilty plea as voluntary and deferred

sentencing for preparation of a pre-sentence investigation report. During the

April 20, 2023 sentencing proceeding, Johnson exercised his right of allocution

and asked the court for leniency. Although Johnson acknowledged that he

was drunk and belligerent during the incident, he stated that he was not trying

to fight with or hurt the officer. (See N.T. Sentencing, 4/20/23, at 13-14).

The trial court sentenced Johnson to an aggregate term of two-and-one-half

to five years’ incarceration, followed by two years of probation.

      Johnson filed a post-sentence motion on April 26, 2023, requesting the

trial court to reconsider the mitigating factors of his history of drug and alcohol

abuse and mental health issues. The trial court denied the motion on May 3,

2023. Johnson timely appealed and he and the court complied with Rule 1925.

See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)-(b). In his 1925(b) statement, Johnson asserted for

the first time trial court error in accepting his guilty plea as voluntary, given

his reluctance to agree to the facts forming the basis for his plea.

      In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court stated that Johnson waived

his challenge to the voluntariness of his plea because he failed to raise it in

                                       -4-
J-S38041-23

his post-trial motion. (See Trial Court Opinion, 6/26/23, at 3-4). The court

also found, based on the totality of the circumstances including its extensive

colloquy at the hearing, that Johnson’s plea was valid. (See id. at 5).

                                               II.

       In his issue on appeal, Johnson challenges the voluntariness of his guilty

plea in light of his reluctance to admit to the acts forming its basis during the

plea hearing. (See Johnson’s Brief, at 9-12). Johnson maintains that his plea

is invalid because he “not only equivocated but clearly denied committing the

acts forming the factual basis for his guilty plea [and] continued to assert his

innocence before sentencing.” (Id. at 11). At the outset, we find that because

Johnson did not raise this issue in the trial court, he cannot raise it for the first

time on appeal. As a result, it is waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (issues not

raised in trial court are waived and cannot be raised for first time on appeal).

       Even if the issue had been raised, Johnson would not be entitled to

relief.2 “To be valid a guilty plea must be voluntary, knowing and intelligent.”

____________________________________________

2

       [P]ost-sentence motions for withdrawal are subject to higher
       scrutiny since courts strive to discourage entry of guilty pleas as
       sentence-testing devices. A defendant must demonstrate that
       manifest injustice would result if the court were to deny his post-
       sentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea. Manifest injustice may
       be established if the plea was not tendered knowingly,
       intelligently, and voluntarily. In determining whether a plea is
       valid, the court must examine the totality of circumstances
       surrounding the plea. A deficient plea does not per se establish
       prejudice on the order of manifest injustice. It is well-settled that
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -5-
J-S38041-23

Commonwealth v. Diehl, 61 A.3d 265, 268 (Pa. Super. 2013), appeal

denied, 77 A.3d 1258 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted). The guilty plea colloquy

must affirmatively show that the defendant understood what the plea entailed

and its consequences, and this determination must be made by examining the

totality of the circumstances. See Commonwealth v. Davis, 191 A.3d 883,

889 (Pa. Super. 2018), appeal denied, 200 A.3d 2 (Pa. 2019). Additionally,

“once a defendant enters a guilty plea, it is presumed that he was aware of

what he was doing.” Commonwealth v. Culsoir, 209 A.3d 433, 437 (Pa.

Super. 2019).      “Consequently, defendants are bound by statements they

make during their guilty plea colloquies and may not successfully assert any

claims that contradict those statements.” Id. (citation omitted).

       In this case, the record reflects that Johnson, with the assistance of

counsel, was made fully aware of the factual basis for his plea through both

the written and oral colloquies.         While Johnson briefly equivocated at the

hearing, he ultimately agreed to the factual basis for the plea and admitted

that he caused Officer Bixler bodily injury.        Furthermore, in exchange for

entering the plea, the Commonwealth nolle prossed numerous serious charges

stemming from his assault on Officer Bixler and belligerence during his arrest,

____________________________________________

       the decision whether to permit a defendant to withdraw a guilty
       plea is within the sound discretion of the trial court.

Commonwealth v. Dinell, 270 A.3d 530, 533 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citation
omitted).

                                           -6-
J-S38041-23

including strangulation and terroristic threats. Despite Johnson’s claims to the

contrary, the record shows that the plea agreement was his best option under

the circumstances of this case, and the trial court’s extensive colloquy at the

hearing, coupled with the written plea, demonstrate that he entered it

voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. Therefore, even if properly preserved,

the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the guilty plea was

voluntary.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Date: 10/23/2023

                                     -7-