Com. v. Lewis, B.
2957 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 30, 2017Background
- Appellant Billae R. Lewis was arrested in Sept. 2013 and charged with several VUFA offenses, including possession of a firearm prohibited (18 Pa.C.S. §6105).
- In May 2015, Lewis was tried by jury on §§6106 and 6108; §6105 was bifurcated for separate disposition. The jury convicted Lewis of §§6106 and 6108.
- Immediately after the verdict, Lewis entered an open guilty plea to §6105; the court conducted an on-the-record oral colloquy and Lewis also signed a written plea colloquy that covered the Rule 590 topics and a specified sentence range.
- Lewis filed a pre-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea (June 22, 2015) and later argued at hearings that he did not know what he was doing and challenged the adequacy of the colloquy.
- The trial court denied the motion; Lewis was sentenced to consecutive terms on §6105 and §6106. He appealed the denial of the motion to withdraw his plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Lewis's pre-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea | Commonwealth: plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered; written and oral colloquies satisfied Rule 590; withdrawal would substantially prejudice the Commonwealth | Lewis: colloquy was deficient (omissions), so he did not fully understand rights waived; asserted innocence and that he "didn't know what he was doing" | Court affirmed denial: plea valid under totality of circumstances; Lewis failed to show a fair-and-just reason; withdrawal would prejudice the Commonwealth |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Carrasquillo, 115 A.3d 1284 (Pa. 2015) (standards for presentence plea withdrawal; bare assertion of innocence insufficient)
- Commonwealth v. Gordy, 73 A.3d 620 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard for granting pre-sentence withdrawal and definition of Commonwealth prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Pollard, 832 A.2d 517 (Pa. Super. 2003) (defendant bears burden to show plea was not knowing and voluntary)
- Commonwealth v. Yeomans, 24 A.3d 1044 (Pa. Super. 2011) (totality-of-circumstances test for plea colloquy adequacy)
- Commonwealth v. Ross, 447 A.2d 943 (Pa. 1982) (withdrawing plea may be denied where Commonwealth prejudiced by reliance on plea)
- Commonwealth v. Morrison, 878 A.2d 102 (Pa. Super. 2005) (written plea colloquy can supplement oral colloquy to satisfy Rule 590)