Com. v. Bettencourt, S.
Com. v. Bettencourt, S. No. 1213 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 10, 2017Background
- Steve (Steven Edward) Bettencourt entered negotiated guilty pleas on three dockets to multiple counts including burglary, attempted burglary, receiving stolen property, prohibited offensive weapons, possession of a controlled substance, and paraphernalia.
- In exchange, the Commonwealth dismissed other related charges and the parties agreed to an aggregate sentence of 5 to 10 years imprisonment and $27,541.81 restitution.
- Bettencourt filed a nunc pro tunc motion for permission to file a post-sentence motion; the court granted leave, held a hearing, and denied relief.
- Counsel filed an Anders brief and petition to withdraw, concluding the appeal was frivolous; Bettencourt did not respond.
- The Superior Court independently reviewed the record, including the plea colloquy and written plea statements, and affirmed sentence and restitution and granted counsel permission to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bettencourt could withdraw his guilty pleas post-sentence (manifest injustice/invalid plea) | Bettencourt contended his plea was not fully understood/knowing and sought withdrawal | Trial court and Commonwealth argued plea colloquy and written statements showed plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent | Denied — plea was knowing and voluntary; no manifest injustice shown |
| Whether restitution and/or the discretionary aspects of sentence are appealable/illegal | Bettencourt argued restitution was unsupported by the record and also sought to challenge sentence severity | Commonwealth showed restitution amount and plea terms were placed on the record; sentence was the bargained-for term | Denied — restitution was supported and agreed to on the record; discretionary-sentence claim barred by negotiated plea terms |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedural requirements when counsel seeks to withdraw on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Anders/withdrawal requirements in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Pollard, 832 A.2d 517 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standard for withdrawal of guilty plea)
- Commonwealth v. Muhammad, 794 A.2d 378 (Pa. Super. 2002) (manifest injustice standard for plea withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Rush, 909 A.2d 805 (Pa. Super. 2006) (colloquy and totality of circumstances for plea validity)
- Commonwealth v. Daniels, 999 A.2d 590 (Pa. Super. 2010) (notice to defendant when counsel files Anders brief)
- Commonwealth v. Millisock, 873 A.2d 748 (Pa. Super. 2005) (procedural guidance on Anders notices)
- Commonwealth v. Kinnan, 71 A.3d 983 (Pa. Super. 2013) (restitution challenges implicate legality of sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Stradley, 50 A.3d 769 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for legality of sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Kroh, 654 A.2d 1168 (Pa. Super. 1995) (terms of plea must be stated on the record)
- Commonwealth v. Main, 6 A.3d 1026 (Pa. Super. 2010) (waiver effect of guilty plea)
- Commonwealth v. Baney, 860 A.2d 127 (Pa. Super. 2004) (negotiated plea extinguishes challenge to discretionary sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Eisenberg, 98 A.3d 1268 (Pa. 2014) (acceptance of sentencing terms in plea bars later challenge)