Com. v. Brown, P., 3104 EDA 2015

Paul Brown pled guilty on July 8, 2015 to one count of Criminal Use of a Communications Facility for phone conversations that prosecutors said referred to delivery of cocaine.
The plea was part of a negotiated agreement limiting the minimum sentence to the standard guideline range; a PSI was ordered.
On August 18, 2015 the court sentenced Brown to 18–60 months’ imprisonment (state prison), within the standard guideline range.
Brown filed post‑sentence motions (to withdraw his guilty plea and to reconsider sentence); the court denied them after a hearing and Brown timely appealed.
At the plea colloquy Brown admitted using the phone to commit the crime and stated he understood his wrongdoing; at sentencing he later claimed a misunderstanding about the plea’s nature but acknowledged referring someone via phone.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Brown should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea post‑sentence	Brown contended his plea was entered due to a misunderstanding and was therefore not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary	The Commonwealth/trial court relied on plea colloquy statements and the totality of the record showing Brown acknowledged the factual basis and that he understood his rights	Denied — plea was knowing, intelligent, voluntary; no manifest injustice shown
Whether the 18–60 month sentence was excessive / should be reconsidered	Brown argued the court failed to consider rehabilitative needs and the sentence was excessive (top of the standard range)	The court noted it reviewed the PSI and the sentence was within the negotiated standard guideline range; presence of PSI and guideline sentence presumptively appropriate	Denied — sentencing court did not abuse discretion; sentence appropriate under Sentencing Code

Commonwealth v. Flick, 802 A.2d 620 (Pa. Super. 2002) (heightened scrutiny for post‑sentence plea withdrawals)
Commonwealth v. Gunter, 771 A.2d 767 (Pa. 2001) (manifest injustice standard for plea withdrawal)
Commonwealth v. Muhammad, 794 A.2d 378 (Pa. Super. 2002) (subjects to be covered in guilty plea colloquy)
Commonwealth v. Broaden, 980 A.2d 124 (Pa. Super. 2009) (standards for post‑sentence plea withdrawal review)
Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard for sentencing review and four‑part test for discretionary aspects of sentencing)
Commonwealth v. Monahan, 860 A.2d 180 (Pa. Super. 2004) (requirement to state reasons on record when exceeding guideline ranges)
Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (PSI supports presumption that court considered defendant's character and mitigating factors)