Court Opinion

ID: 9375745
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-28 18:06:51.907036+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:01.304999
License: Public Domain

J-S45026-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                      IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
                                                     OF PENNSYLVANIA
                          Appellee

                     v.

ANTHONY ALVES

                          Appellant                  No. 1375 EDA 2022

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 22, 2022
             In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County
            Criminal Division at No.: CP-45-CR-0001127-2020

BEFORE: OLSON, J., STABILE, J., and MURRAY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.:                       FILED FEBRUARY 28, 2023

      Appellant, Anthony Alves, appeals from his judgment of sentence of

fourteen to thirty-six months’ imprisonment following his guilty plea to

possession with intent to deliver marijuana, 75 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30).

Appellant argues that the court abused its discretion by denying his motion to

withdraw his guilty plea. We affirm.

      On February 26, 2020, Appellant was arrested for possession with intent

to distribute heroin, possession with intent to distribute marijuana and related

offenses following a search of a residence in which he resided with his

girlfriend, Virginia Elliot, who owned the residence. On September 10, 2021,

Appellant pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute marijuana in

consideration for withdrawal of all other charges.         Appellant and the

Commonwealth did not agree on the length of his sentence. On November

10, 2021, Appellant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, averring simply
J-S45026-22

that he was “innocent of the charge.”            Motion To Withdraw Guilty Plea,

11/10/21, at ¶ 3. On March 8, 2022, following an evidentiary hearing, the

court denied Appellant’s motion.          On April 22, 2022, the court imposed a

sentence of fourteen to thirty-six months’ imprisonment, a slightly higher

minimum sentence than the Commonwealth requested.1 This timely appeal

followed. Both Appellant and the court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

         Appellant raises a single issue in this appeal, “Did the trial court abuse

its discretion by not allowing Appellant to withdraw his plea prior to

sentencing, when such discretion is to be administered liberally in favor of the

accused where there was a plausible assertion of innocence?” Appellant’s Brief

at 4. Appellant argues that “another person” (his brother) “had access to the

garage and the drugs found could have belonged to [him].” Appellant’s Brief

at 10.

         The following considerations govern the decision to grant or deny a

presentence motion to withdraw a plea:

         (1) “there is no absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea;” (2) “trial
         courts have discretion in determining whether a withdrawal
         request will be granted;” (3) “such discretion is to be administered
         liberally in favor of the accused;” and (4) “any demonstration by
         a defendant of a fair-and-just reason will suffice to support a
         grant, unless withdrawal would work substantial prejudice to the
         Commonwealth.”

____________________________________________

1 The Commonwealth asked for a sentence of ten to thirty-six months’
imprisonment. N.T., 4/22/22, at 3.

                                           -2-
J-S45026-22

Commonwealth v. Norton, 201 A.3d 112, 116 (Pa. 2019) (quoting

Commonwealth v. Carrasquillo, 115 A.3d 1284, 1292 (Pa. 2015)). A fair

and just reason exists where the defendant makes claim of innocence that is

at least plausible. Carrasquillo, 115 A.3d at 1292. “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, 201 A.3d at 120-21.      “[T]rial courts have

discretion to assess the plausibility of claims of innocence.” Id. at 121; see

also Pa.R.Crim.P. 591 (“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”).

      In Carrasquillo, the Supreme Court held that the court properly denied

the defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea where the defendant

claimed in support of the motion that he was framed by the Central

Intelligence Agency. Id., 115 A.3d at 1287. The defendant’s statements,

compared against the Commonwealth’s strong proffer of evidence at the plea

hearing, rendered the assertion of innocence implausible.           Id. at 1298.

Similarly, the denial of relief in the companion case to Carrasquillo was

proper where the defendant asserted his innocence but offered no evidence.

Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 116 A.3d 1103, 1104, 1107 (Pa. 2015).

                                       -3-
J-S45026-22

      In Commonwealth v. Islas, 156 A.3d 1185 (Pa. Super. 2017), this

Court distilled four “guideposts” from Carrasquillo:

      First, the Court squarely rejected a per se approach in which any
      presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea based on a claim of
      innocence must be granted. Second, nothing in Carrasquillo
      suggests that the Court intended the pendulum to swing fully in
      the other direction—from automatic grants to automatic denials of
      pre-sentence motions to withdraw. Indeed, the Court expressly
      reaffirmed the liberal-allowance language in [Commonwealth
      v.] Forbes, [299 A.2d 268 (Pa. 1973),] which continues to stand
      in sharp contrast to the “manifest injustice” standard for post-
      sentence motions to withdraw. Third, the Court directed trial
      courts to distinguish between “mere, bare, or non-colorable”
      assertions of innocence on the one hand and those that are “at
      least plausible” on the other. Fourth, as trial courts undertake the
      task of making that distinction, both the timing and the nature of
      the innocence claim, along with the relationship of that claim to
      the strength of the government’s evidence, are relevant. In
      addition, in his concurring opinion in Carrasquillo, then-Justice
      Stevens added that trial courts assessing the credibility of an
      accused’s assertion of innocence should also consider any “ulterior
      or illicit motive” for the motion to withdraw.

Id. at 1190-91.

      In this case, the court properly determined that Appellant’s claim of

innocence is completely implausible.     Appellant claims in his brief that his

brother had access to the garage where the marijuana was found. Therefore,

Appellant continues, he could have presented the defense during trial that the

drugs belonged to his brother instead of him. The evidence presented during

Appellant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea belies this argument.

      Detective Scarfo of the Pocono Mountain Regional Police Department

testified that Officer Michaels of the same department advised that Virginia

Elliot reported that she had discovered illegal narcotics in her residence. N.T.,

                                      -4-
J-S45026-22

3/8/22, at 13-14. When Detective Scarfo arrived at Elliot’s residence, she

escorted him and Officer Michaels to the bedroom, where she showed them a

shoe box on a shelf that contained several packets of packaged heroin in a

Ziploc bag that also had rice in it. Id. at 17. She stated that only Appellant

and her had access to the bedroom. Id. She then led the two men to the

garage and showed them a bag about the size of a basketball. Id. at 17.

Inside the bag were multiple smaller bags containing marijuana. Elliot advised

that Appellant frequented the garage. Id.

      Detective Scarfo then interviewed Appellant and asked where the drugs

were located inside the home, and “[Appellant] presented to me where they

were located before I told him, therefore, had knowledge of the locations of

said drugs, and then he did admit those drugs were his.” Id. at 20. Detective

Scarfo testified that Elliot said either her brother or Appellant’s brother had

access to the house but not the garage. Id. at 15-16. The evidence thus

demonstrates that (1) Appellant’s brother did not have access to the garage

where the marijuana was located, (2) Appellant had access to the garage; and

(3) Appellant admitted that the marijuana found in the garage was his.

Appellant’s assertion of innocence is implausible when compared to the

Commonwealth’s strong proffer of guilt during the evidentiary hearing. The

court thus acted within its discretion by denying Appellant’s motion to

withdraw his guilty plea. Norton, 201 A.3d at 120-21.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

                                     -5-
J-S45026-22

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 2/28/2023

                          -6-