Com. v. Davis, J., 1237 EDA 2017

Defendant Jermaine Davis was charged with drug offenses (possession with intent to deliver heroin and cocaine; separate counts for delivery and use of communication facility) in Northampton County.
Appointed counsel Alexander Karam represented Davis; trial was scheduled for February 27, 2017 after plea negotiations in mid-February.
On February 27, after renewed negotiations, Davis entered a negotiated guilty plea to one count of possession with intent to deliver heroin (<1 gram) in exchange for dismissal of remaining charges and an agreed sentence of 18–36 months (a mitigated sentence below the standard range).
The court conducted an on-the-record colloquy; Davis acknowledged he was taking Seroquel but said it did not affect his understanding, signed written plea forms, and admitted understanding rights and the factual basis for the plea.
Davis filed a post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming the plea was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent due to his mental state and lack of sleep and that he believed he was going to trial.
The trial court denied the post-sentence motion; Davis appealed and the Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred in denying Davis’s post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea	Davis argues plea was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent because of his mental state, medication, and lack of sleep; thus manifest injustice occurred	Commonwealth/trial court argue the plea colloquy, written plea forms, counsel’s participation, and stated factual basis show the plea was knowing and voluntary	Affirmed: plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered; no manifest injustice shown, so post-sentence withdrawal not permitted

Commonwealth v. Starr, 301 A.2d 592 (Pa. 1973) (after sentencing, a plea may be withdrawn only to correct manifest injustice)
Commonwealth v. Pollard, 832 A.2d 517 (Pa. Super. 2003) (guilty plea must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent)
Commonwealth v. Gunter, 771 A.2d 767 (Pa. 2001) (manifest injustice occurs when plea is not knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily entered)
Commonwealth v. Kelly, 5 A.3d 370 (Pa. Super. 2010) (pre-sentence plea withdrawal governed by "fair and just reason" and prosecution prejudice)
Commonwealth v. Kpou, 153 A.3d 1020 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard for post-sentence withdrawal: correct manifest injustice)
Commonwealth v. Carrasquillo, 115 A.3d 1284 (Pa. 2015) (pre-sentence withdrawal should be liberally allowed for fair and just reasons absent substantial prejudice)
Commonwealth v. Flick, 802 A.2d 620 (Pa. Super. 2002) (post-sentence withdrawal standard explained)
Commonwealth v. Muhammad, 794 A.2d 378 (Pa. Super. 2002) (review plea voluntariness by totality of circumstances)