Com. v. Wallace, R., 1486 WDA 2015

Defendant Ronald Paul Wallace was convicted after a May 2015 jury trial of multiple counts including terroristic threats, harassment, stalking, and witness intimidation; aggregate sentence of 7–14 years imprisonment plus 11 years probation was imposed (judgment amended Oct. 7, 2015).
The challenged events arose from two arrests (March 4 and April 16, 2014); Wallace filed a timely post-sentence motion that did not raise the instant claim; he appealed after the amended sentence.
At trial, before the defense case, the court conducted a colloquy confirming Wallace understood his right to testify and that the decision was his alone; Wallace initially stated he would testify.
The court then commented it had “yet to see testimony from a defendant work out well,” and emphasized it was Wallace’s choice not to base the decision on the court’s experience.
After conferring briefly with counsel, Wallace told the court he would follow his attorney’s advice and not testify; the court confirmed the waiver was voluntary and that Wallace understood he could not later claim regret.
Wallace did not object at trial nor raise this issue in a post-sentence motion; he later argued on appeal the court’s remark coerced him and violated his constitutional right to testify and right to counsel.

Issue	Wallace's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court deprived Wallace of his constitutional right to testify and right to counsel by telling him it had “yet to see testimony from a defendant work out well,” thereby persuading him not to testify	The court’s remark effectively coerced Wallace into not testifying despite his initial unequivocal choice to do so, infringing his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights and Pennsylvania constitutional rights	The claim is waived because Wallace failed to object at trial or raise it in post-sentence motions; alternatively, the court did not coerce Wallace—he knowingly, voluntarily waived after colloquy and consulting counsel	Waived under Pa.R.A.P. 302(a); even on the merits, no deprivation shown—Wallace knowingly and voluntarily elected not to testify after colloquy and consultation with counsel; judgment affirmed

Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (1987) (supreme-court discussion of a defendant’s constitutional right to testify)
Commonwealth v. Jermyn, 533 A.2d 74 (Pa. 1987) (Pennsylvania Constitution guarantees defendant’s right to be heard by himself and counsel)
Commonwealth v. Todd, 820 A.2d 707 (Pa. Super. 2003) (trial court need not conduct a colloquy to validate a defendant’s waiver of the right to testify)
Commonwealth v. Hammer, 494 A.2d 1054 (Pa. 1985) (exception to waiver doctrine where judicial conduct makes contemporaneous objection futile or dangerous)
Commonwealth v. Grant, 813 A.2d 726 (Pa. 2002) (clarifying scope of waiver and appellate review doctrines)