Com. v. Eisaman, E., 491 MDA 2019

Background

Appellant Edward Eisaman was found guilty before a Magisterial District Judge of driving under suspension (75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1543(a)) after a 2017 traffic stop; he filed and later withdrew a summary appeal while a prior 2013 conviction was addressed.
The 2013 “following too closely” conviction that triggered a license suspension was vacated and replaced with a lesser offense in September 2018, prompting reinstatement of Appellant’s summary appeal in December 2018.
At the February 26, 2019 summary-appeal hearing the Commonwealth amended the charge to driving without a license (75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1501(a)); Appellant pled guilty and did not object at plea entry.
Only after the plea did the court have the Commonwealth read the recidivist statute (75 Pa.C.S.A. § 6503) and then sentenced Appellant as a second-or-subsequent offender to a $1,000 fine and 30–90 days’ incarceration.
Appellant objected post-sentencing and appealed; the Superior Court held the plea colloquy was constitutionally deficient because Appellant was not informed of the possible recidivist enhancement or other mandatory colloquy topics, vacated the judgment of sentence, and remanded for a summary appeal hearing.

Issues

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Appellant's Argument	Held
1) Whether the court erred by not advising Appellant of the recidivist statute (§6503) before accepting the guilty plea to §1501(a)	Plea was entered; statute was read before sentencing; Appellant waived objections by pleading guilty	Court failed to inform Appellant that §6503 could increase minimum/authorize incarceration before plea; plea therefore invalid	Court held the colloquy was deficient; failure to notify of recidivist penalty invalidated plea process; vacated sentence and remanded
2) Whether Appellant should have been allowed to withdraw his plea after receiving a harsher sentence than expected	Any negotiated expectations were counsel’s responsibility; no preserved plea-withdrawal motion before sentencing	Appellant had no realistic opportunity to withdraw plea after court imposed enhanced sentence	Court found Appellant effectively precluded from withdrawing and relief warranted by vacatur; remand ordered
3) Whether the 30–90 day incarceration sentence was an abuse of discretion for a summary offense	Enhanced sentence was authorized under §6503 given Appellant’s prior record	Sentence exceeded norms for summary offense and contradicted plea expectations	Court did not reach merits of sentence claim (disposition on plea-colloquy defect)
4) Whether the court erred by failing to advise Appellant of appellate, IFP, and bail rights	Not argued on merits in opinion	Court failed to advise these rights during colloquy	Court declined to address due to vacatur/remand

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Persinger, 612 A.2d 1305 (Pa. 1992) (defendant must be informed of maximum punishment; notice required for consequences of plea)
Commonwealth v. Reagan, 502 A.2d 702 (Pa. Super. 1985) (recidivist penalty must be disclosed prior to a guilty plea)
Commonwealth v. Flanagan, 854 A.2d 489 (Pa. 2004) (totality-of-circumstances test for plea validity; expectation of compliance with Rule 590 colloquy)
Commonwealth v. Hodges, 789 A.2d 764 (Pa. Super. 2002) (Rule 590 requires on-the-record colloquy covering statutorily enumerated topics)
Commonwealth v. Fluharty, 632 A.2d 312 (Pa. Super. 1993) (plea valid only if defendant understands nature and consequences of plea)
Commonwealth v. Marizzaldi, 814 A.2d 249 (Pa. Super. 2002) (procedural rules governing post-sentence motions and summary offenses)