Com. v. Ward, J.
265 WDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Aug 16, 2016Background
- Jessica Lynne Ward was charged with endangering the welfare of a child after becoming intoxicated while her two-year-old son was in her sole care. Jury selection was scheduled for the day of the plea.
- Ward entered a negotiated guilty plea to one count of recklessly endangering another person (REAP) in exchange for a probationary sentence; the trial court accepted the plea.
- Ward subsequently filed a pre-sentence Petition to Withdraw Plea claiming she did not understand the plea colloquy and asserting innocence; the court denied the petition.
- The trial court sentenced Ward to two years probation and ordered alcohol/drug treatment.
- Ward appealed; appellate counsel (Attorney Irwin) filed an Anders brief and petition to withdraw, asserting the appeal was frivolous but raising issues about plea withdrawal and understanding.
- The Superior Court independently reviewed the record, found the plea colloquy comprehensive and voluntary, concluded the withdrawal claim was meritless, granted counsel’s Anders petition, and affirmed the judgment of sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying Ward’s pre-sentence Motion to Withdraw Plea | Ward argued she did not fully understand the guilty plea colloquy and thus should be allowed to withdraw the plea before sentencing | Trial court (and Commonwealth) argued the written and oral colloquies were adequate and Ward’s statements showed the plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent | Denial affirmed: record shows extensive written and oral colloquy covering required topics; Ward’s unsupported confusion claim insufficient to require withdrawal |
| Whether sentencing pursuant to the negotiated plea was improper after Ward sought to withdraw and claimed lack of understanding or innocence | Ward argued the court should not have imposed the negotiated sentence after her petition and statements of confusion/innocence | Court noted no fair-and-just reason demonstrated; plea was accepted voluntarily and sentencing pursuant to the agreement was proper | Affirmed: plea acceptance and sentencing proper; bare assertion of innocence belied by plea colloquy |
| Whether counsel complied with Anders procedures to withdraw on appeal | Ward (through Anders counsel) raised arguably meritorious issues but counsel concluded appeal frivolous | Attorney Irwin filed a petition to withdraw, an Anders brief summarizing facts, issues, and reasons, and notified Ward of her rights | Granted: Anders requirements satisfied; court performed independent review and found appeal wholly frivolous |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedural requirements when counsel seeks to withdraw on grounds appeal is frivolous)
- Goodwin v. Commonwealth, 928 A.2d 287 (Pa. Super. 2007) (requirement to examine counsel’s Anders compliance before reviewing merits)
- Burwell v. Commonwealth, 42 A.3d 1077 (Pa. Super. 2012) (Anders brief content and counsel duties)
- Santiago v. Commonwealth, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (standards for a proper Anders brief)
- Bedell v. Commonwealth, 954 A.2d 1209 (Pa. Super. 2008) (guilty pleas must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent)
- Morrison v. Commonwealth, 878 A.2d 102 (Pa. Super. 2005) (six required plea colloquy topics)
- Gordy v. Commonwealth, 73 A.3d 620 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard for pre-sentence plea withdrawal; discretionary review)
- Carrasquillo v. Commonwealth, 115 A.3d 1284 (Pa. 2015) (liberality of pre-sentence withdrawal but requiring fair and just reason; plausibility of innocence claim)
- Yeomans v. Commonwealth, 24 A.3d 1044 (Pa. Super. 2011) (defendant bound by statements under oath at plea colloquy)
- Hvizda v. Commonwealth, 116 A.3d 1103 (Pa. 2015) (standards related to plea withdrawal and assertions of innocence)