Com. v. Shine, B.
2133 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 26, 2016Background
- Appellant Bryan J. Shine pleaded guilty pro se on June 26, 2015 to resisting arrest (18 Pa.C.S. § 5104) and harassment (18 Pa.C.S. § 2709) pursuant to a negotiated sentence (2–23 months for resisting arrest with credit; 90 days probation consecutive for harassment) and was immediately paroled.
- Appellant filed a timely pro se notice of appeal (July 13, 2015) and a pro se Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement (Aug. 3, 2015).
- On the same day as the Rule 1925(b) statement, Appellant filed an untimely pro se post-sentence motion seeking withdrawal of his guilty plea.
- The trial court later appointed appellate counsel (Sept. 11, 2015); appointed counsel filed an appellate brief challenging whether Appellant knowingly and intelligently waived the right to challenge his plea.
- The central procedural question was whether Appellant preserved his claim that his plea was involuntary despite failing to file a timely post-sentence motion and failing to assert an exception to the waiver rule in his Rule 1925(b) statement.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Shine preserved a claim that his guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent despite failing to file a timely post-sentence motion | Shine contends his plea was involuntary and that the court’s colloquy misadvised him about post-sentence/appellate rights, so waiver should be excused | Commonwealth argues Shine waived the claim by not timely filing a post-sentence motion and not raising the waiver-exception in his Rule 1925(b) statement | The claim was waived: Shine did not preserve an exception to the waiver rule in his Rule 1925(b) statement, so the issue is forfeited on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- McCusker v. Commonwealth, 402 A.2d 500 (Pa. 1979) (failure to inform defendant of right to file post-verdict motions can justify nunc pro tunc relief)
- Johnson v. Commonwealth, 392 A.2d 760 (Pa. Super. 1978) (trial court’s failure to advise of post-plea motion rights creates an invalid waiver warranting remand)
- Arndt v. Commonwealth, 410 A.2d 852 (Pa. Super. 1979) (recognizes McCusker/Johnson but allows remand not always required where defendant filed comprehensive post-verdict motions)
- Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998) (issues not raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement are waived)