Com. v. McClendon, C., 293 A.3d 658

Appellant Corey McLendon was charged with multiple offenses arising from a multi-day domestic assault (strangulation, cutting the victim’s neck with scissors, beating with a broomstick, threats, etc.) and pled guilty to aggravated assault in exchange for dismissal of other counts on August 6, 2021.
At earlier proceedings McLendon repeatedly refused to cooperate with appointed counsel, delayed the preliminary hearing by demanding private counsel, and refused to sign the public-defender application or waiver forms.
On the morning of his scheduled sentencing (October 11, 2021) McLendon filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea; appointed counsel then moved to withdraw. Counsel was permitted to withdraw and the court allowed McLendon to proceed pro se without conducting a Pa.R.Crim.P. 121 waiver colloquy, finding forfeiture of the right to counsel based on dilatory conduct.
McLendon later attempted to delay sentencing by claiming COVID-positive tests he could not document; sentencing proceeded November 24, 2021 and the court imposed 75 to 150 months’ imprisonment for aggravated assault.
McLendon appealed, raising three issues: (1) denial of his pre-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea, (2) error in requiring him to proceed pro se (no waiver colloquy and/or forfeiture), and (3) alleged sentencing abuse of discretion.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Commonwealth / Trial Court Argument	Held
1. Pre-sentence withdrawal of guilty plea	Plea was involuntary/under duress due to poor relationship with counsel; should be allowed pre-sentence	Plea colloquy shows Appellant admitted guilt and sought plea to get a deal; statements were venting not a fair-and-just reason to withdraw	Denial affirmed — no abuse of discretion; Appellant consistently admitted guilt and gave no fair-and-just reason to withdraw
2. Right to counsel / proceeding pro se	Trial court erred by not conducting Rule 121 waiver colloquy and by forcing Appellant to proceed pro se; he did not forfeit the right	Appellant repeatedly obstructed and delayed (refused counsel, delayed prelim, filed pro se motions, false COVID claim); conduct amounted to forfeiture of counsel so Rule 121 does not apply	Forfeiture upheld; trial court did not err in requiring Appellant to proceed pro se
3. Sentencing discretion	Sentence (75–150 months) excessive; court relied on improper factors and (implicitly) his silence to find lack of remorse	Court considered defendant’s statements (blaming victim), impact on victim, public protection, scoring and deadly-weapon enhancement; sentence within standard/aggravated range and adequately explained	No abuse of discretion; sentence affirmed

Commonwealth v. Lucarelli, 971 A.2d 1173 (Pa. 2009) (forfeiture of right to counsel can result from extremely dilatory misconduct and excuses Rule 121 colloquy)
Commonwealth v. Kelly, 5 A.3d 370 (Pa. Super. 2010) (indigent defendant’s repeated noncooperation can support forfeiture and requiring pro se proceedings)
Commonwealth v. Elia, 83 A.3d 254 (Pa. Super. 2013) (pre-sentence plea withdrawal standard; liberal consideration of fair-and-just reasons)
Commonwealth v. Neal, 563 A.2d 1236 (Pa. Super. 1989) (distinguishes waiver error where defendant clearly did not wish to proceed pro se and a colloquy was required)
Commonwealth v. Bowen, 975 A.2d 1120 (Pa. Super. 2009) (sentencing court may consider remorse but cannot penalize defendant solely for silence)
Commonwealth v. Rhodes, 990 A.2d 732 (Pa. Super. 2009) (sentencing court may not rely on undisclosed reports or materials not in evidence)
Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard of review and preservation rules for sentencing challenges)