Com. v. Smith, M.
Com. v. Smith, M. No. 428 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 28, 2017Background
- Parole officers, acting on a confidential informant tip, searched Smith’s residence on May 16, 2015 and found a container with 73 zip-lock bags (19 contained marijuana) and $22; Smith was charged with possession with intent to deliver.
- Smith waived preliminary hearing and arraignment; a guilty plea was scheduled, but he later sought a status conference and then filed a Motion to Suppress on November 4, 2015, claiming the warrantless search lacked reasonable suspicion.
- The trial court denied the Motion to Suppress as untimely filed.
- On February 16, 2016, Smith pled guilty to an amended charge of possession of drug paraphernalia; court imposed 30 days to 1 year for that conviction and revoked probation on separate matters, imposing an additional 1–3 year sentence consecutive to the new sentence.
- Smith filed a post-trial motion arguing the court should have held a suppression hearing; the trial court denied relief, and Smith appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Motion to Suppress was erroneously denied as untimely | Smith: Motion should be heard in the interest of justice because he lacked opportunity earlier and lacked documents due to prison transfers | Commonwealth/Trial Ct.: Motion was untimely; Smith waived pretrial defenses by pleading guilty | Denied — Smith’s voluntary guilty plea waived pretrial challenges, so untimeliness of the suppression motion did not entitle him to relief |
| Whether the warrantless search violated constitutional protections | Smith: Officers relied on an anonymous tip and lacked reasonable suspicion for the search | Commonwealth: Evidence and voluntariness of plea extinguished suppression challenge | Not reached on merits — plea waiver bars the claim |
| Whether Smith’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary | Smith implied involuntariness by contesting suppression timing | Commonwealth: Plea colloquy showed Smith understood rights, consequences, and waived pretrial motions | Plea was knowing and voluntary; claims waived except for plea validity, jurisdiction, and sentence legality |
| Whether post-trial procedures preserved plea-voluntariness claims | Smith: Post-trial motion preserved issues | Commonwealth: A timely post-sentence motion must challenge plea validity; Smith’s post-trial motion did not attack plea voluntariness | Any claim about voluntariness was waived for failure to object during colloquy or file timely motion to withdraw plea |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 929 A.2d 205 (Pa. 2007) (guilty plea waives procedural and nonjurisdictional defenses)
- Commonwealth v. Tareila, 895 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2006) (guilty plea waives all defects except jurisdiction, plea validity, and sentence legality)
- Commonwealth v. Lincoln, 72 A.3d 606 (Pa. Super. 2013) (procedures for challenging voluntariness of a plea on direct appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Bedell, 954 A.2d 1209 (Pa. Super. 2008) (requirements for a valid, knowing, and voluntary guilty plea)
- Commonwealth v. Yeomans, 24 A.3d 1044 (Pa. Super. 2011) (statements during plea colloquy bind the defendant)
- Commonwealth v. Muhammad, 794 A.2d 378 (Pa. Super. 2002) (defendant cannot claim plea involuntariness when colloquy shows no coercion)