Commonwealth v. Johnson-Daniels
167 A.3d 17
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Police arrested Barry G. Johnson-Daniels after a CI-purchased controlled buy; officers recovered ~35g cocaine under his body and, from his car under warrant, heroin in 59 packets, ~$4,000, and phones. He was charged with multiple drug and related offenses (11 counts total).
- Appellant entered open guilty pleas on the first day of trial (Dec. 8, 2015) after a full plea colloquy; court accepted pleas and ordered a PSI.
- At sentencing (Jan. 26, 2016) the Commonwealth urged a ≥4-year term and made robust allocution about drug-dealing harms; defense moved to withdraw the plea immediately after hearing the recommendation. The court initially allowed withdrawal, raised bail, and set trial.
- The Commonwealth moved for reconsideration citing Commonwealth v. Carrasquillo; on Feb. 8, 2016 the court rescinded its withdrawal order, reinstated the guilty pleas, and sentenced Appellant to an aggregate 4½–9 years imprisonment (with RRRI eligibility and credit for time served).
- Appellant appealed the denial of his presentence withdrawal request and the discretionary aspects (excessiveness) of his sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by reinstating plea after earlier allowing withdrawal | Johnson-Daniels argued his counsel timely sought withdrawal at sentencing for a fair-and-just reason: factual innocence and prejudicial Commonwealth allocution | Commonwealth argued court could reassess withdrawal under Carrasquillo; withdrawal request was implausible/tactical and timed after sentencing recommendation | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion — timing (on sentencing day), implausibility of innocence claim, and strong Commonwealth evidentiary proffer justified denying withdrawal |
| Whether aggregate sentence (4½–9 yrs) is excessive | Johnson-Daniels claimed sentence failed to account for mitigating factors and rehabilitative needs and should have been within lower guideline range, concurrent | Commonwealth/trial court relied on defendant’s long drug-dealing history, prior PWID convictions, severity of offenses, and permissive discretion to order consecutive terms | Court affirmed: sentence within guideline ranges, court considered PSI and mitigation, no abuse of discretion or failure to state reasons on record |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Carrasquillo, 115 A.3d 1284 (Pa. 2015) (sets standard for pre-sentence guilty-plea withdrawal — liberal in favor of accused but trial courts may assess credibility and deny when request is implausible or untimely)
- Commonwealth v. Blango, 150 A.3d 45 (Pa. Super. 2016) (affirmed denial of pre-sentence plea withdrawal where timing and implausibility suggested manipulation)
- Commonwealth v. Provenzano, 50 A.3d 148 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for sentencing—abuse of discretion framework)
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sentencing review)
- Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (a sentencing court informed by a presentence report is presumed aware of appropriate sentencing factors)