Commonwealth v. Reid, 117 A.3d 777

Background

On Sept. 4, 2009, Reid and a co-defendant fled a robbery; during a police chase they fired at officers; Officer Hospetale was shot. Two loaded firearms and $100,000 were recovered from the getaway vehicle.
Reid pleaded guilty pursuant to a negotiated plea on Mar. 21, 2011 to attempted murder, first‑degree assault of a law‑enforcement officer, and aggravated assault, among other counts; many other charges were nolle prossed.
Sentencing on Jan. 16, 2014: attempted murder 10–20 years (with §9714 mandatory minimum applied), assault of an officer 20–40 years (§9719.1 mandatory minimum), aggravated assault 5–10 years consecutive — aggregate 25–50 years.
Counsel filed an Anders brief and petition to withdraw on appeal asserting no non‑frivolous issues; the Superior Court reviewed the record independently.
The Superior Court addressed six arguable issues raised in the Anders brief and affirmed the judgment of sentence; counsel’s petition to withdraw was granted.

Issues

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
1. Was the guilty plea knowing, intelligent, and voluntary?	Reid contends plea was not knowing/voluntary.	Trial court complied with oral and written plea colloquies; Reid assented on the record.	Plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
2. Is the negotiated sentence manifestly excessive (discretionary review)?	Reid contends the 25–50 year negotiated sentence was excessive.	Sentence was the product of a negotiated plea; discretionary review is barred.	Claim waived; cannot challenge discretionary aspects of a negotiated sentence.
3. Is the sentence illegal under Alleyne because mandatory minimums were imposed?	Alleyne renders mandatory minimums unconstitutional unless jury finds facts beyond prior convictions.	§9714 (prior‑conviction enhancement) and §9719.1 (statutory mandatory for assault on officer) are not invalid under Alleyne.	Alleyne does not invalidate §9714 or §9719.1 application here; sentence legal.
4. Did the Commonwealth breach an agreement (e.g., testimony/benefit promise)?	Reid claims Commonwealth failed to honor an alleged promise after he testified in other matters.	No written or recorded agreement exists in the record; only the plea agreement is shown.	No evidence of any breached agreement; claim fails.
5. Ineffective assistance: counsel failed to move to withdraw plea pre/post‑sentence.	Reid asserts privately retained plea counsel was ineffective for not filing motions to withdraw.	Ineffective‑assistance claims are premature on direct appeal and belong in PCRA collateral review.	Claims deferred to PCRA; not reviewed on direct appeal.
6. Ineffective assistance: advised Reid not to allocute.	Reid contends counsel improperly advised him against allocution.	Same: premature; PCRA is proper vehicle.	Deferred to PCRA.

Key Cases Cited

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedural safeguards when counsel seeks to withdraw on direct appeal)
Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (requirements for an Anders brief in Pennsylvania)
Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimums must be found by a jury, with noted exception for prior convictions)
Commonwealth v. Holmes, 79 A.3d 562 (Pa. 2013) (ineffective assistance claims typically deferred to collateral review)
Commonwealth v. Morrison, 878 A.2d 102 (Pa. Super. 2005) (plea colloquy requirements)
Commonwealth v. Myers, 642 A.2d 1103 (Pa. Super. 1994) (negotiated plea as indicator of voluntariness)