Com. v. Ramos, L.
2138 MDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 16, 2016Background
- Luis Ramos pled guilty pursuant to a negotiated plea to third-degree murder for the December 29, 2012 shooting death of Raymond Miranda; plea contemplated a 15–40 year term.
- At the plea/sentencing hearing (March 26, 2014) the court accepted the negotiated plea and immediately imposed the agreed 15–40 year sentence; presentence report was available and uncontested.
- Ramos did not file a post-sentence motion and thus did not preserve challenges to the voluntariness of his plea.
- Ramos filed a timely PCRA petition claiming counsel failed to file a direct appeal; the trial court granted leave to file a nunc pro tunc appeal.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders/Santiago brief and petition to withdraw, concluding the appeal was frivolous.
- The Superior Court conducted an independent review, found no non-frivolous issues, granted counsel leave to withdraw, and affirmed the judgment of sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of guilty plea | Ramos contended plea was invalid/contestable | Trial court and counsel asserted plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by colloquy and paperwork | Waived—Ramos failed to object at colloquy or file a post-sentence motion; appellate review not permitted on direct appeal (per Lincoln) |
| Legality of sentence | Ramos argued sentence illegal | Commonwealth/court asserted sentence fell within statutory limits for third-degree murder | Frivolous—15–40 years is within statutory maximum/minimum; sentence legal |
| Counsel withdrawal under Anders/Santiago | Ramos implicitly challenged counsel’s decision to withdraw | Counsel provided Anders/Santiago brief, letter to defendant, and notice of rights | Granted—counsel complied with procedural and substantive Anders/Santiago requirements; court performed independent review |
| Right to nunc pro tunc appeal | Ramos argued appellate rights were reinstated via PCRA | Commonwealth/court acknowledged PCRA order allowing nunc pro tunc appeal | Granted—PCRA court allowed nunc pro tunc appeal, but reinstatement did not cure waiver of plea challenges without preserved objections |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (requires counsel to brief arguably meritorious issues before withdrawing)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (state-specific Anders requirements for Anders brief)
- Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. 2013) (procedural requirements for counsel seeking to withdraw on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Lincoln, 72 A.3d 606 (Pa. Super. 2013) (failure to object at plea or file post-sentence motion waives plea-voluntariness challenge)
- Commonwealth v. Flowers, 113 A.3d 1246 (Pa. Super. 2015) (appellate court must conduct independent review when counsel seeks to withdraw)
- Commonwealth v. Infante, 63 A.3d 358 (Pa. Super. 2013) (legality of sentence is not waived by guilty plea)
- Commonwealth v. Reichle, 589 A.2d 1140 (Pa. Super. 1991) (a negotiated sentence generally precludes discretionary-aspects challenges)