Court Opinion

ID: 9399548
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-05 16:12:46.557408+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:30.656635
License: Public Domain

J-S12022-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    FAUSTO GUZMAN                              :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1110 MDA 2022

          Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 13, 2022
       In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at
                        No(s): CP-06-CR-0003548-2021

BEFORE:      KUNSELMAN, J., McCAFFERY, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY McCAFFERY, J.:                   FILED: JUNE 5, 2023

        Fausto Guzman (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence

imposed in the Berks County Court of Common Pleas following his negotiated

guilty plea to one count each of aggravated assault and flight to avoid

apprehension.1 Contemporaneous with this appeal, Appellant’s counsel, Emily

Washburn, Esquire, has filed a petition to withdraw from representation and

an Anders brief.         See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967);

Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009). The Anders brief

presents two claims, challenging the voluntariness of Appellant’s plea and

discretionary aspects of his sentence. For the reasons below, we affirm the

judgment of sentence and grant counsel’s petition to withdraw.
____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1   See 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2702(a)(1), 5126(a).
J-S12022-23

       We discern the relevant facts underlying Appellant’s arrest from the

affidavit of probable cause.        Just before 2:00 p.m. on August 18, 2021,

Reading police were dispatched to a shooting near the campus of Reading

Area Community College. See Affidavit of Probable Cause, 10/25/21, at 1

(unpaginated). The victim sustained four gunshot wounds but survived. See

id. The incident was observed by an eyewitness and captured on surveillance

video. See id. The victim was the driver of a van, that was stopped in the

right lane. Id. When a small sedan pulled up next to the van, the victim

exited the van and approached the driver of the sedan, later identified as

Appellant. Appellant opened his car door, and the victim “motion[ed] to [him]

with his hand[,]” before taking a step closer. Id. At that time, Appellant shot

at the victim, and then fled the scene.          Id.     It was later determined that

Appellant was the owner of the sedan, and had a valid permit to carry a

concealed firearm.         Id. at 2.    He was apprehended in New York, after

purchasing a one-way ticket to the Dominican Republic. Id. See also N.T.,

7/13/22, at 12.

       Appellant     was     subsequently      charged    with   attempted   murder,

aggravated assault (two counts), flight to avoid apprehension, possessing an

instrument of crime, recklessly endangering another person, and simple

assault (two counts).2 On July 13, 2022, represented by privately retained

____________________________________________

2 See 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 901/2502, 2702(a)(4), 907(b), 2705, and 2701(a)(1),
(a)(2), respectively.

                                           -2-
J-S12022-23

counsel, Allan Sodomsky, Esquire, Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea3

to one count each of aggravated assault and flight to avoid prosecution, in

exchange for an aggregate sentence of 4½ to 10 years’ imprisonment.4 See

N.T. at 13; Statement Accompanying Appellant’s Request to Enter a Guilty

Plea, 7/13/22, at 1.

       Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal on August 5, 2022, and, on

August 11th the trial court directed him to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise

statement of matters complained of on appeal. On August 19, 2022, Attorney

Sodomsky filed a motion to withdraw as counsel, noting his fee agreement

with Appellant did not include the filing of an appeal. See Motion to Withdraw

as Counsel, 8/19/22, at 1 (unpaginated). The court granted counsel’s petition

to withdraw on August 25th. See Order, 8/25/22.

       On September 8, 2022, this Court issued a per curiam order, directing

the trial court to conduct a Grazier5 hearing to ascertain if Appellant wished

to proceed with counsel or pro se.             See Order, 9/8/22.   The trial court

complied, and determined Appellant wished to be represented by counsel.

See Letter from Trial Court to Superior Court Deputy Prothonotary, 10/6/22.
____________________________________________

3The trial court provided Appellant with a Spanish interpreter during the plea
and sentencing hearing. See N.T. at 2.

4The court imposed a sentence of 4 ½ to 10 years’ imprisonment on the count
of aggravated assault, and a concurrent term of 9 to 24 months’ imprisonment
on the charge of flight to avoid prosecution. See N.T. at 13. In addition, the
Commonwealth dismissed the remaining charges.

5   Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998).

                                           -3-
J-S12022-23

Thereafter, on October 31, 2022, Berks County Assistant Public Defender

Attorney Washburn entered her appearance and requested permission to file

a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement nunc pro tunc, which the trial court

granted. See Motion to File Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on

Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc, 11/3/22, at 2 (unpaginated); Order, 11/10/22. In lieu

of a concise statement, on November 22nd, Attorney Washburn filed a

statement indicating her intent to file an Anders brief. See Statement of

Intent to File and Anders/McClendon Brief, 11/22/22.

     When, as here, counsel files a petition to withdraw and accompanying

Anders brief, we must first examine the request to withdraw before

addressing any of the substantive issues raised on appeal. Commonwealth

v. Bennett, 124 A.3d 327, 330 (Pa. Super. 2015). An attorney seeking to

withdraw from representation on appeal

     must: 1) petition the court for leave to withdraw stating that, after
     making a conscientious examination of the record, counsel has
     determined that the appeal would be frivolous; 2) furnish a copy
     of the brief to the defendant; and 3) advise the defendant that he
     or she has the right to retain private counsel or raise additional
     arguments that the defendant deems worthy of the court’s
     attention.

Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030, 1032 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en

banc). Pursuant to Santiago, counsel must also:

     (1) provide a summary of the procedural history and facts, with
     citations to the record; (2) refer to anything in the record that
     counsel believes arguably supports the appeal; (3) set forth
     counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) state
     counsel’s reasons for concluding that the appeal is frivolous.
     Counsel should articulate the relevant facts of record, controlling

                                     -4-
J-S12022-23

        case law, and/or statutes on point that have led to the conclusion
        that the appeal is frivolous.

Id., quoting Santiago, 978 A.2d at 361.

        In the present case, the brief and petition to withdraw filed by Attorney

Washburn comply with the requirements of Anders and Santiago.                 See

Cartrette, 83 A.3d at 1032. Moreover, Attorney Washburn has provided this

Court with a copy of the letter she sent to Appellant, advising him of his right

to proceed with newly retained counsel or pro se, and to raise any additional

points for this Court’s attention. See Attorney Washburn’s letter to Appellant,

2/2/23.6     Appellant has not filed a response.     Therefore, we proceed to

examine the issues identified in the Anders brief, and then conduct “a full

examination of all the proceedings, to decide whether the case is wholly

frivolous[.]”   See Commonwealth v. Yorgey, 188 A.3d 1190, 1196 (Pa.

Super. 2018) (en banc) (quotation omitted).         If we agree with counsel’s

assessment, “[we] may grant counsel’s request to withdraw and dismiss the

appeal[.]” Id. (citation omitted).

        The Anders brief identifies two claims for our review:

        1) Whether Appellant can support the standard of manifest
           injustice required to withdraw his negotiated guilty plea[?]

        2) Whether Appellant, having entered into a negotiated guilty
           plea, can challenge the discretionary aspects of his sentence[?]

Anders Brief at 5.

____________________________________________

6   The letter was provided in both English and Spanish.

                                           -5-
J-S12022-23

      Appellant’s challenge to the voluntariness of his guilty plea fails for two

reasons.     First, “[a] defendant wishing to challenge the voluntariness of a

guilty plea on direct appeal must either object during the plea colloquy or file

a   motion     to   withdraw   the    plea   within   ten   days   of   sentencing.”

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

omitted). Appellant did not file a post-sentence motion, nor did he object to

the entry of or the voluntariness of his plea at the plea hearing.              See

generally N.T. at 2-15. Accordingly, he has waived this issue for appellate

review. See Lincoln, 72 A.3d at 611.

      Second, even if the claim were not waived, we would conclude that

Appellant is entitled to no relief.

      [A] request to withdraw a guilty plea after sentencing is subject
      to higher scrutiny [than a pre-sentence request] since courts
      strive to discourage [the] entry of guilty pleas as sentence-testing
      devices. Therefore, in order to withdraw a guilty plea after the
      imposition of sentence, a defendant must make a showing of
      prejudice which resulted in a manifest injustice. A defendant
      meets this burden only if he can demonstrate that his guilty plea
      was entered involuntarily, unknowingly, or unintelligently.

Commonwealth v. Culsoir, 209 A.3d 433, 437 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citations

& quotation marks omitted).           Moreover, we presume “a defendant who

entered a guilty plea was aware of what he was doing, and the defendant

bears the burden of proving otherwise.” Commonwealth v. Hart, 174 A.3d

660, 665 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation omitted).

      In the present case, Appellant completed both a written and oral plea

colloquy, which demonstrated his understanding of the proceedings, and the

                                        -6-
J-S12022-23

voluntariness of his decision to enter a guilty plea.7           See Statement

Accompanying Appellant’s Request to Enter a Guilty Plea at 1-4; N.T. at 2-11.

Moreover, during the plea hearing, Appellant affirmed that he understood the

following: (1) he was charged with aggravated assault and flight to avoid

apprehension; (2) he was presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a

reasonable doubt; (3) he had the right to a jury trial; (4) he had the right to

file pretrial motions, that he was giving up by pleading guilty; (5) his right to

challenge his plea and sentence would be limited; (6) he was satisfied with

the representation of his attorney; (7) the trial court was not bound to impose

the negotiated sentence; (8) the maximum sentences he could receive were

20 years’ incarceration for aggravated assault and 7 years for flight; and (9)

no one forced him to plead guilty. See N.T. at 2-10. See also Pa.R.Crim.P.

590, Comment. Although Appellant appeared not to fully comprehend a few

of the questions, either the trial court or defense counsel took the time to

explain the questions to him in more detail. See N.T. at 4-7, 10-11. Further,

Appellant admitted to the following facts underlying his plea:

       [O]n or about August 18 of 2021, . . . near the Reading Area
       Community College . . . [he] did shoot the victim with a firearm
       and . . . cause bodily injury to him . . . in circumstances
       manifesting an indifference to the value of human life. And that
       afterwards, [he] did travel outside the Commonwealth with the
       intent to avoid apprehension and punishment in this case. . . .
____________________________________________

7 We emphasize that the written colloquy is signed by a Spanish interpreter
who attested that they interpreted the question contained therein from English
to Spanish, and that the answers in the colloquy were Appellant’s. See
Statement Accompanying Appellant’s Request to Enter a Guilty Plea at 4.

                                           -7-
J-S12022-23

Id. at 8. Thus, the certified record demonstrates Appellant’s plea was entered

knowingly and voluntarily.

      The second issue identified in the Anders brief challenges the

discretionary aspects of Appellant’s sentence. It is well established that such

a challenge does not entitle an appellant to “review as of right.”

Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 768 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en

banc) (citation omitted). Rather,

      [b]efore this Court can address such a discretionary challenge, an
      appellant must comply with the following requirements:

         An appellant challenging the discretionary aspects of his
         sentence must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by satisfying
         a four-part test: (1) whether appellant has filed a timely
         notice of appeal, see Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 903; (2) whether
         the issue was properly preserved at sentencing or in a
         motion to reconsider and modify sentence, see Pa.R.Crim.P.
         [720]; (3) whether appellant’s brief has a fatal defect,
         Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether there is a substantial
         question that the sentence appealed from is not appropriate
         under the Sentencing Code.

Id. (citation omitted).

      Here, because Appellant did not file a post-sentence motion challenging

the discretionary aspects of his sentence or preserve any claim at the

sentencing hearing, he has failed to properly invoke this Court’s jurisdiction,

and is entitled to no relief. See Caldwell, 117 A.3d at 768. Moreover, the

sentence imposed was a negotiated term of Appellant’s plea agreement, and

is, therefore, not subject to discretionary review. This Court has observed:

      [When] the plea agreement contains a negotiated sentence which
      is accepted and imposed by the sentencing court, there is no
      authority to permit a challenge to the discretionary aspects of that

                                     -8-
J-S12022-23

       sentence. If either party to a negotiated plea agreement believed
       the other side could, at any time following entry of sentence,
       approach the judge and have the sentence unilaterally altered,
       neither the Commonwealth nor any defendant would be willing to
       enter into such an agreement. Permitting a discretionary appeal
       following the entry of a negotiated plea would undermine the
       designs and goals of plea bargaining, and would make a sham of
       the negotiated plea process[.]

Commonwealth v. Morrison, 173 A.3d 286, 290 (Pa. Super. 2017).

Accordingly, the second issue presented in the Anders brief is also meritless.8

       Consequently, we agree with Attorney Washburn’s determination that

the two issues presented in the Anders brief are meritless, and our

independent review of the record revealed no non-frivolous issues to be raised

on appeal.      See Yorgey, 188 A.3d at 1196.           Therefore, we affirm the

judgment of sentence and grant Attorney Washburn’s petition to withdraw.

       Judgment of sentence affirmed.            Petition to withdraw as counsel

granted.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 06/05/2023

____________________________________________

8 We note, too, that the negotiated sentences imposed fell within the standard
range of the sentencing guidelines. See N.T. at 10.

                                           -9-