Com. v. Cromwell, A., Com. v. Cromwell, A. No. 481 WDA 2014

On May 23, 2013, Andre Lemont Cromwell robbed a victim at gunpoint and was charged with robbery and recklessly endangering another person (REAP).
Cromwell was represented by court-appointed counsel; he filed pro se motions (including for new counsel and Rule 600 relief) before trial; nominal bail was granted shortly before trial.
On the morning trial began, Cromwell moved for a continuance alleging counsel was unprepared; the court denied the continuance and the Commonwealth presented its case.
The next day Cromwell entered a negotiated guilty plea to robbery and REAP and was immediately sentenced to an aggregate 5–10 years’ imprisonment.
Post-sentencing, Cromwell filed to withdraw his plea claiming it was involuntary and coerced by counsel’s alleged unpreparedness and the threat of a much higher sentence; the trial court denied the motion and appointed new counsel for appeal.
Cromwell appealed, arguing (1) the plea was involuntary due to a coercive atmosphere and counsel’s failures, and (2) plea counsel was ineffective; the Superior Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plea counsel was ineffective causing an involuntary plea	Cromwell: counsel’s lack of preparation and advocacy coerced him into pleading guilty to avoid a much higher sentence	Commonwealth: ineffectiveness claims are premature on direct appeal and should be deferred to collateral review	Superior Court: claim dismissed as premature under Holmes; may be raised in PCRA collateral proceedings
Whether the trial court erred in denying post‑sentence withdrawal of plea (manifest injustice)	Cromwell: plea was involuntary because of coercive atmosphere created by counsel’s poor performance and the disparity between plea and potential exposure	Commonwealth: plea colloquy and record show plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; no manifest injustice	Superior Court: affirmed trial court; plea was voluntary and petitioner failed to show manifest injustice

Commonwealth v. Holmes, 79 A.3d 562 (Pa. 2013) (ineffective-assistance claims generally deferred to collateral review; two narrow exceptions)
Commonwealth v. Muhammad, 794 A.2d 378 (Pa. Super. 2002) (post-sentence plea withdrawal allowed only to correct "manifest injustice")
Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard for post-sentence plea withdrawal and manifest injustice)
Commonwealth v. Rush, 909 A.2d 805 (Pa. Super. 2006) (validity of guilty plea judged by totality of circumstances and adequacy of colloquy)
Commonwealth v. Flick, 802 A.2d 620 (Pa. Super. 2002) (different standards for pre‑ and post‑sentence plea withdrawal)
Commonwealth v. Reid, 117 A.3d 777 (Pa. Super. 2015) (ineffectiveness claims on direct appeal may be premature under Holmes)