Com. v. Renteria, E.
Com. v. Renteria, E. No. 2656 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 2, 2017Background
- Appellant Emmanuel Renteria faced two consolidated matters: one (No. 2657 EDA 2016) where a jury convicted him of multiple offenses including theft, robbery, aggravated assault, and conspiracy; the companion matter (No. 2656 EDA 2016) resolved by guilty plea to three robberies and conspiracy.
- The trial court imposed consecutive terms: 14½ to 29 years in the jury-conviction case and 14 to 28 years in the plea case, for a combined aggregate of 28½ to 57 years.
- Renteria challenged (1) the voluntariness/validity of his guilty plea (arguing the court failed to advise him pre-plea of the possibility of consecutive sentences) and (2) the discretionary aspects of sentencing in both cases.
- The Commonwealth argued the claims were not preserved for appellate review because Renteria did not object during the plea colloquy, did not file a post-sentence motion to withdraw the plea, and failed to include a Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement in his brief regarding discretionary-sentencing claims.
- The Superior Court declined to review the merits, holding Renteria waived review by failing to follow the preservation procedures governing guilty pleas and discretionary-sentencing challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of guilty plea (failure to advise of possible consecutive sentences) | Renteria: plea involuntary because court did not advise before plea that sentences could run consecutively | Commonwealth: claim waived; no objection at plea colloquy and no timely motion to withdraw plea | Waived for failure to preserve (no objection during colloquy or post-sentence motion); appellate review declined |
| Discretionary aspects of sentencing (excessiveness/appropriateness) | Renteria: sentence not appropriate under Sentencing Code | Commonwealth: procedural default; Renteria failed to include required Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement | Waived for failure to include Rule 2119(f) statement; appellate review barred |
| Whether appellate court may entertain new legal theories in support of preserved claims | Renteria: (attempts to raise arguments on appeal) | Commonwealth: issues must be presented to trial court in the form advanced | Court reiterated that appellate review is limited to issues and legal theories preserved below; cannot raise new theories on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Roberts v. Commonwealth, 352 A.2d 140 (Pa. Super. 1975) (trial court that accepted plea should address plea defects first)
- Commonwealth v. Tareila, 895 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2006) (failure to object at colloquy or move to withdraw plea within ten days waives involuntariness claim)
- Commonwealth v. Rush, 959 A.2d 945 (Pa. Super. 2008) (issues not preserved in trial court generally cannot be raised on appeal; legal theories must match those presented below)
- Commonwealth v. Lincoln, 72 A.3d 606 (Pa. Super. 2013) (discussing preservation requirements for plea and sentencing claims)
- Commonwealth v. Allen, 24 A.3d 1058 (Pa. Super. 2011) (four-part test for appellate review of discretionary-sentencing claims)
- Commonwealth v. Karns, 50 A.3d 158 (Pa. Super. 2012) (failure to include Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement is a fatal defect when objected to)
- Commonwealth v. Tuladziecki, 522 A.2d 17 (Pa. 1987) (procedural requirements for appellate review of discretionary-sentencing claims are mandatory)