Com. v. Cox, L.
Com. v. Cox, L. No. 895 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 28, 2017Background
- On March 13, 2015, Lorenzo Lamont Cox was charged with multiple offenses, including rape; he later negotiated a guilty plea to aggravated assault.
- On February 22, 2016, Cox pleaded guilty to aggravated assault in exchange for time served to 23 months’ county confinement and five years’ probation; the court accepted the plea, imposed the negotiated sentence, and immediately paroled Cox.
- The court ordered no harassing or offensive contact with his wife; Cox violated parole two days after release by contacting her.
- Cox filed a timely pro se notice of appeal, counsel moved to withdraw, and after a Grazier hearing Cox was permitted to proceed pro se and filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement raising 11 issues.
- The Superior Court found Cox’s appellate brief deficient in multiple Pa.R.A.P. respects but, construing pro se filings liberally, declined to quash the appeal.
- The Superior Court rejected Cox’s challenge to the voluntariness of his plea as waived for failure to object during the plea colloquy or to file a motion to withdraw within ten days of sentencing; it also declined to address ineffective-assistance claims, which must be raised collaterally.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voluntariness of guilty plea | Cox contends his plea was involuntary | Trial court says plea was knowing, voluntary, intelligent based on colloquy and written plea | Waived for failure to object or file timely motion; merits lacked support in record |
| Ineffective assistance of plea counsel | Cox alleges counsel was ineffective during plea negotiations | Commonwealth/trial court: such claims are to be raised in collateral review | Not addressed on direct appeal; must be raised in a collateral (PCR) petition |
| Sufficiency of appellate brief | Cox’s brief omitted required Pa.R.A.P. elements | Court could have quashed for defects | Court declined to quash, applying liberal construction for pro se litigants |
| Waiver consequences under Rule/Precedent | Cox argues he can challenge plea now | Commonwealth cites Lincoln and Pa.R.Crim.P. 1007 requiring timely motion/objection | Waiver applies: failure to object at plea or file Rule 1007 motion bars direct appeal of voluntariness |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496 (Pa. Super. 2005) (pro se filings are construed liberally)
- Commonwealth v. Lincoln, 72 A.3d 606 (Pa. Super. 2013) (challenge to plea voluntariness must be raised during colloquy or by motion to withdraw within ten days)
- Commonwealth v. Bedell, 954 A.2d 1209 (Pa. Super. 2008) (trial courts must ensure plea is knowingly and voluntarily entered via specific colloquy)
- Commonwealth v. Kelly, 5 A.3d 370 (Pa. Super. 2010) (defendant is bound by statements made during plea colloquy)
- Commonwealth v. Muhammed, 794 A.2d 378 (Pa. Super. 2002) (a defendant who denies coercion at plea cannot later claim involuntariness)
- Commonwealth v. Grant, 813 A.2d 726 (Pa. 2002) (ineffective-assistance claims should generally be raised in collateral proceedings)
- Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998) (procedure for allowing a defendant to proceed pro se on appeal)