Commonwealth v. Yeomans
24 A.3d 1044
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Appellant pled guilty to one count each of statutory sexual assault, corruption of minors, and patronizing prostitutes; original charges included multiple counts.
- Sentencing occurred after a bench warrant delay, resulting in an aggregate 23 months to 15 years imprisonment.
- Appellant filed post-sentence motions to withdraw his plea or seek reconsideration; an evidentiary hearing was held.
- Trial court denied the post-sentence motions; appellate review followed with Rule 1925 compliance.
- Appellant argues plea was invalid due to ambiguity and ineffective counsel, challenges to sentencing, and a merger issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of guilty plea | Plea was involuntary due to ambiguity and background facts. | Plea terms and factual basis were unclear, unclear consequences. | Plea valid; colloquy showed sufficient factual basis and understanding. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed before and at plea. | Counsel induced plea and provided deficient representation. | Ineffectiveness claims dismissed on direct appeal; may be raised under PCRA. |
| Discretionary aspects of sentence | Maximum sentence within guidelines was excessive given mitigated minimums; PBPP policy irrelevant. | Sentence inappropriate under sentencing code and policies. | No substantial question; within standard range; no relief. |
| Merger for sentencing | Certain convictions should merge or be re-scored for sentencing. | No merger because multiple distinct acts beyond bare elements. | No merger; offenses do not arise from a single act; separate acts validated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Fluharty, 632 A.2d 312 (Pa. Super. 1993) (plea colloquy must show understanding and voluntariness)
- Commonwealth v. Pollard, 832 A.2d 517 (Pa. Super. 2003) (truthful oath in plea; cannot withdraw based on later contrary statements)
- Commonwealth v. Nischan, 928 A.2d 349 (Pa. Super. 2007) (ineffectiveness claims generally cognizable under PCRA, not direct appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Grant, 572 Pa. 48, 813 A.2d 726 (Pa. 2002) (Grant framework for post-conviction ineffectiveness claims)
- Commonwealth v. Kiesel, 854 A.2d 530 (Pa. Super. 2004) (Rule 2119(f) omission may be overlooked if no objection; reach merits)
- Commonwealth v. Lee, 876 A.2d 408 (Pa. Super. 2005) (PBPP policies irrelevant to sentencing discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Kimbrough, 872 A.2d 1244 (Pa. Super. 2005) (maximum sentence within guideline range does not raise substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Boyer, 856 A.2d 149 (Pa. Super. 2004) (sentencing within range governs substantial question analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Marts, 889 A.2d 608 (Pa. Super. 2005) (discretionary sentencing review requires substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 931 A.2d 15 (Pa. Super. 2007) (pure legal question on merger; plenary review)