Com. v. Rivera, R.
Com. v. Rivera, R. No. 952 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 10, 2017Background
- Rivera entered an open nolo contendere plea to multiple felony and misdemeanor charges arising from a surveillance on April 24, 2015, involving hand-to-hand drug transactions and items found in a nearby vacant lot.
- Police observed Rivera engage in hand-to-hand exchanges and enter the vacant lot; officers later recovered heroin packets and a loaded Walther PPK .380 in that lot; Rivera had $15 on him and a co-defendant had drugs and money.
- Rivera was prohibited from possessing firearms due to a prior conviction and was charged with PWID, firearm offenses, conspiracy, and related misdemeanors.
- At the November 16, 2015 sentencing hearing, Rivera (through counsel) orally attempted to withdraw his plea before the court pronounced sentence; the court did not grant withdrawal and later imposed 2–4 years’ incarceration (with some post-plea resentencing eliminating penalties on misdemeanors).
- Rivera filed pre- and post-sentence motions to withdraw the plea and a motion for reconsideration of sentence; he appealed the judgment of sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Rivera's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether factual basis was insufficient for gun/instrument charges, rendering plea involuntary and justifying withdrawal | Plea lacked sufficient evidence tying Rivera to the firearm found in the vacant lot; other persons had access and no direct connection to the gun was shown | The Commonwealth’s proffered colloquy described surveillance, transactions, drugs recovered near a loaded gun, and Rivera’s presence; this sufficed to infer possession | Court held Commonwealth’s factual basis was sufficient; plea not involuntary; motions to withdraw denied |
| Whether sentence was excessive/announced without adequate on-the-record justification (discretionary aspects) | The sentence was in/above aggravated range without adequate reasons or proper guidelines calculation; violated sentencing norms | Appellant waived discretionary challenge by failing to include a Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement; Commonwealth objected | Issue waived for appellate review; sentencing claim not reached on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Carrasquillo, 115 A.3d 1284 (Pa. 2015) (pre-sentence plea-withdrawal standard favors liberal allowance for fair-and-just reasons)
- Commonwealth v. Broaden, 980 A.2d 124 (Pa. Super. 2009) (post-sentence plea-withdrawal requires showing of manifest injustice)
- Commonwealth v. Yeomans, 24 A.3d 1044 (Pa. Super. 2011) (trial court must ensure sufficient factual basis before accepting plea)
- Commonwealth v. Ahmad, 961 A.2d 884 (Pa. Super. 2008) (discretionary aspects of sentence review principles)
- Commonwealth v. Finnecy, 135 A.3d 1028 (Pa. Super. 2016) (procedural requirements for appealing discretionary sentencing claims)
- Commonwealth v. Montgomery, 861 A.2d 304 (Pa. Super. 2004) (failure to include Rule 2119(f) statement waives discretionary sentencing claim)
- Commonwealth v. Moore, 468 A.2d 791 (Pa. Super. 1983) (guilty/nolo pleas waive sufficiency challenges)