Court Opinion

ID: 9950243
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-13 16:12:53.788826+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:36:16.289782
License: Public Domain

J-A06044-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    WADE HAMPTON SHAFFER JR.                   :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 140 WDA 2023

             Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered January 3, 2023
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Venango County Criminal Division at
                       No(s): CP-61-CR-0000234-2021,
              CP-61-CR-0000237-2021, CP-61-CR-0000316-2021

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., PANELLA, P.J.E., and BECK, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BECK, J.:                            FILED: March 13, 2024

       Wade Hampton Shaffer Jr. (“Shaffer”) appeals from the order entered

by the Venango County Court of Common Pleas dismissing his petition

pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”).1        On appeal, Shaffer

challenges the voluntariness of his guilty plea based on alleged prosecutorial

misconduct. Because Shaffer has waived the sole issue he raises on appeal,

we affirm.

       The charges in this case stem from an incident that occurred on March

29, 2021. On that date, Shaffer threatened Mariah Reagle (“Reagle”) with a

firearm because she refused to give him a ride in her vehicle.          Shaffer

____________________________________________

1   42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.
J-A06044-24

subsequently made several attempts to contact Reagle, both on his own and

through others, to pressure her not to press charges against him.

      The Commonwealth charged Shaffer at three separate docket numbers

with numerous offenses, including simple assault, harassment, persons not to

possess a firearm, theft by unlawful taking (of a firearm), criminal coercion,

criminal trespass, false imprisonment, kidnapping with the intent to inflict

bodily injury on or to terrorize the victim or another, intimidation of witnesses,

and stalking. On July 8, 2021, Shaffer pled guilty to simple assault, criminal

coercion, and stalking. In exchange for his plea, the Commonwealth agreed

to nolle pros his remaining charges, including the firearm-related offenses,

and to recommend a sentence of four to eight years of incarceration. The trial

court accepted the guilty plea and imposed the agreed upon sentence on

September 27, 2021.       Shaffer filed a motion for reconsideration of his

sentence, which the trial court denied. Shaffer did not pursue a direct appeal.

      On February 28, 2022, Shaffer timely filed a pro se PCRA petition, his

first, in which he alleged that ineffective assistance of counsel unlawfully

induced him to plead guilty to crimes for which he was innocent. Specifically,

Shaffer asserted that his plea counsel was aware the firearm that the

Commonwealth alleged he had stolen was, in fact, in the possession of the

rightful owner and that plea counsel should have used this information to get

the Commonwealth to withdraw his firearms charges. Shaffer averred that it

                                      -2-
J-A06044-24

was the threat of the sentences relating to his firearms charges that induced

him to plead guilty to crimes he did not commit.

       The PCRA court appointed counsel to represent Shaffer; PCRA counsel

did not file an amended petition. On October 6, 2022, the PCRA court held a

hearing on Shaffer’s petition.         At the hearing, Shaffer, through counsel,

expressly abandoned his ineffective assistance of counsel claim in favor of a

claim that prosecutorial misconduct unlawfully induced Shaffer to plead guilty.

Shaffer argued that the Commonwealth should have withdrawn his firearms

charges because it was aware that the allegedly stolen firearm was in the

possession of the firearm’s owner, and the Commonwealth’s decision not to

withdraw his firearms charges placed him in a weaker negotiating position for

his plea bargain.

       On January 3, 2023, the PCRA court denied Shaffer’s PCRA petition. It

found that Shaffer had abandoned his ineffective assistance of counsel claim

and waived his claim that prosecutorial misconduct unlawfully induced his

guilty plea because he did not raise it in his PCRA petition.

       On February 2, 2023, Shaffer, despite being represented by PCRA

counsel, filed a pro se notice of appeal.2 On April 21, 2023, in response to a

____________________________________________

2 We note that Shaffer filed a single notice of appeal that listed all three trial
court docket numbers. “[W]here a single order resolves issues arising on
more than one docket, separate notices of appeal must be filed for each case”
and the failure to do so “will result in quashal of the appeal.” Commonwealth
v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969, 971 (Pa. 2018), overruled in part, Commonwealth
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -3-
J-A06044-24

request by Shaffer for the removal of PCRA counsel, this Court issued an order

directing the PCRA court to determine whether he remained represented by

PCRA counsel or whether he was entitled to substitute counsel. On April 26,

2023, the PCRA court entered an order removing PCRA counsel and appointing

substitute counsel for Shaffer’s PCRA appeal.

       On appeal, Shaffer presents one issue for our review:

       Whether the [PCRA court] erred as [a] matter [of law] or abused
       its discretion in denying [Shaffer]’s PCRA petition and denying that
       [Shaffer]’s guilty plea and sentence be vacated due to the
       prosecution failing to disclose that the firearms had been found,
       which said charge of [t]heft of a [f]irearm induced [Shaffer] to
       enter into a guilty plea.

Shaffer’s Brief at 5.

       Shaffer argues that the PCRA court erred in dismissing his claim that his

guilty plea was unlawfully induced by prosecutorial misconduct. Id. at 8-13.

Shaffer asserts that the Commonwealth did not negotiate his plea in good faith

____________________________________________

v. Young, 265 A.3d 462, 477 (Pa. 2021) (reaffirming Walker, but concluding
that Pa.R.A.P. 902 permits an appellate court, in its discretion, to allow for the
correction of such an error); see also Pa.R.A.P. 902. This Court has
concluded, however, that a breakdown in the operations of the court, which
excuses strict compliance with Walker, occurs when the lower court does not
inform a defendant of his appellate rights or determine on the record that the
defendant has been advised of his appellate rights. Commonwealth v.
Floyd, 257 A.3d 13, 17 (Pa. Super. 2020); see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 908(E)
(stating that a PCRA court “shall advise the defendant of the right to appeal
from the final order disposing of the petition and of the time limits within which
the appeal must be filed”). Here, the record reflects that the PCRA court failed
to inform Shaffer of his appellate rights. We therefore conclude that a
breakdown in the court’s operations, like the one in Floyd, occurred in this
case, and we decline to quash this appeal.

                                           -4-
J-A06044-24

because it did not inform him that the allegedly stolen firearm had been found

in the possession of the owner.          Id. at 12. Shaffer contends that had he

known this information, he would have had a defense to his firearms charges

and would not have felt pressured into pleading guilty. Id. Shaffer asserts

that the Commonwealth, in failing to disclose the information related to the

firearm at issue, violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).3 Shaffer’s

Brief at 12-13. Shaffer thus claims that he did not knowingly and voluntarily

enter his guilty plea. Id. at 12.

       We review the denial of PCRA relief by “examining whether the PCRA

court’s findings of fact are supported by the record, and whether its

conclusions of law are free from legal error.” Commonwealth v. Busanet,

54 A.3d 35, 45 (Pa. 2012). “Our scope of review is limited to the findings of

the PCRA court and the evidence of record, viewed in the light most favorable

to the party who prevailed in the PCRA court proceeding.” Id.

       A petitioner may obtain relief pursuant to the PCRA by proving that his

guilty plea was “unlawfully induced where the circumstances make it likely

that the inducement caused the petitioner to plead guilty and the petitioner is

innocent.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)(iii). Importantly, however, the PCRA does

not permit claims that have “been previously litigated or waived.”         Id.§

____________________________________________

3 In Brady, the United States Supreme Court held that “suppression by the
prosecution of favorable evidence to an accused upon request violates due
process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment[.]”
Brady, 373 U.S. at 87.

                                           -5-
J-A06044-24

9543(a)(3).     Additionally, Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 902(B)

states that “[e]ach ground relied upon in support of the relief requested shall

be stated in the [PCRA] petition” and that the “[f]ailure to state such a ground

in the petition shall preclude the defendant from raising that ground in any

proceeding for post-conviction collateral relief.”      Pa.Crim.P. 902(B).   Thus,

“[i]t is well-settled that issues not raised in a PCRA petition cannot be

considered on appeal.” Commonwealth v. Ousley, 21 A.3d 1238, 1242 (Pa.

Super. 2011).

       After careful review, we conclude that Shaffer waived his challenge to

the validity of his plea based on prosecutorial misconduct because he did not

raise this claim in his PCRA petition.4        See Pa.R.Crim.P. 902(B); see also

PCRA Petition, 2/28/2022, at 4. Likewise, Shaffer has waived his Brady claim

because he did not raise it in his PCRA petition. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 902(B).

Accordingly, because Shaffer has waived his sole issue on appeal, he is not

entitled to relief.5

____________________________________________

4  Moreover, Shaffer’s prosecutorial misconduct claim is also waived because
he did not raise it in a direct appeal. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9544(b) (An issue is
deemed waived under the PCRA “if the petitioner could have raised it but failed
to do so before trial, at trial, during unitary review, on appeal or in a prior
state postconviction proceeding”); see also Commonwealth v. Wholaver,
177 A.3d 136, 174 (Pa. 2018) (holding that claims of prosecutorial misconduct
that a petitioner could have raised on direct appeal are waived for purposes
of the PCRA).

5 We further note that as part of the plea agreement, the charges related to
the firearm were nolle prossed. Moreover, Shaffer explicitly stated during the
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -6-
J-A06044-24

       Order affirmed.

 3/13/2024

____________________________________________

guilty plea colloquy that he was guilty of the remaining offenses. N.T.,
7/8/2021, at 8-9; see also Commonwealth v. Felix, 303 A.3d 816, 821
(Pa. Super. 2023) (stating that “a defendant is bound by his statements at his
plea colloquy and may not assert grounds for withdrawing the plea that
contradict statements made when he entered the plea.”) (citation omitted).

                                           -7-