Com. v. Ramirez, M.
1171 EDA 2020
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 25, 2022Background
- May 23, 2019: Ramirez pled guilty to retail theft and was sentenced to two years of probation.
- Sept. 17, 2019: Philadelphia police arrested Ramirez for burglary and related offenses; Montgomery County filed a probation violation notice on Sept. 23, 2019.
- Feb. 21, 2020 revocation hearing: parties jointly recommended Ramirez stipulate to the violations, waive a Gagnon I hearing, and proceed to sentencing; Ramirez testified under oath that he could read/understand English, was sober and clear‑minded, signed a probation‑stipulation form and the violation notice, and denied promises or coercion.
- Later the same day Ramirez claims he was arrested on new charges arising from conduct in jail while awaiting the revocation hearing; he contends the Commonwealth intentionally delayed filing those charges until after he stipulated.
- Trial court found the stipulation knowing, voluntary and intelligent and imposed sentence (time served to 12 months, then 1 year probation); on appeal the Superior Court limited review to whether the stipulation was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ramirez knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily stipulated to probation violations when the Commonwealth allegedly concealed its intent to file new charges the same day. | Ramirez: the Commonwealth withheld knowledge of imminent new charges; he was pressured after months incarcerated and would not have stipulated if he knew; stipulation therefore not knowing/voluntary/intelligent. | Commonwealth: record (colloquy, signed stipulation form, signed violation notice, Ramirez’s sworn admissions) shows the stipulation was knowing/voluntary/intelligent; the later charges were unrelated and collateral; many claims waived for failure to raise them in Rule 1925(b). | Superior Court: majority of Ramirez’s complaints waived; the preserved claim fails on the merits—stipulation was knowing, voluntary and intelligent; the court may not consider extra‑record documents and lack of knowledge of unrelated future charges does not invalidate the stipulation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (due‑process framework for probation/parole revocation hearings requiring pre‑revocation probable‑cause and a fuller revocation hearing)
- Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484 (Pa. 2011) (Rule 1925(b) claims‑preservation rule; issues not raised in statement deemed waived)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (certain collateral consequences of pleas may be constitutionally required to be disclosed; distinguishes collateral vs. direct consequences)
- Commonwealth v. Barndt, 74 A.3d 185 (Pa. Super. 2013) (possibility of probation revocation is a collateral consequence that does not invalidate a plea when not disclosed)
- Commonwealth v. Burks, 102 A.3d 497 (Pa. Super. 2014) (Rule 720 post‑sentence motion for after‑discovered evidence does not apply to probation revocation cases)
- Commonwealth v. Bell, 410 A.2d 843 (Pa. Super. 1979) (discusses voluntariness standard for stipulations in revocation proceedings; plurality decision)