Possession with Intent to Deliver Denial of Presentence Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea Challenge to Discretionary Aspects of Sentence
Commonwealth v. Johnson-Daniels, PICS Case No. 17-1133 (Pa. Super. July 5, 2017) Dubow, J. (22 pages).
Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request to withdraw a guilty plea where such request was made after defendant learned of the commonwealth's recommended sentence, and defendant's assertion of innocence was not plausible. Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Barry Johnson-Daniels appealed sentence following his conviction for possession with intent to deliver and related drug offenses, and escape, resisting arrest, and two summary driving offenses. Appellant was arrested after he was caught selling crack cocaine to a confidential information working with police. Immediately prior to jury selection, appellant entered a guilty plea to all open charges. Appellant underwent a waiver colloquy, affirming that he understood the elements of the crimes he was charged with, the possible sentences, the government's burden of proof, and agreeing that he was pleading guilty because he was guilty of the charged crimes. The trial court accepted the guilty pleas and scheduled sentencing.
At the sentencing hearing, the commonwealth requested a minimum sentence of four years' incarceration. However, following the prosecutor's comments, appellant moved to withdraw his guilty plea prior to sentencing, asserting factual innocence. The trial court granted appellant's motion, but upon the commonwealth reconsideration motion, the trial court denied appellant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea and sentenced appellant to 4.5 to nine years' incarceration. Appellant filed a post-sentence motion seeking credit for time served, RRRI eligibility, and modification of his sentence based on a claim of excessiveness. The trial court denied modification, but granted RRRI eligibility and credit for time served.
On appeal, appellant argued that the trial court erred in reinstating his guilty plea when it initially found a fair and just reason for withdrawal, and reasserted his excessive sentence claim. As to appellant's claim that the irrelevant and prejudicial comments by the prosecutor and his assertion of factual innocence were fair and just reasons for withdrawal of his guilty plea, the court first noted that a trial court's discretion to grant a withdrawal request was to be administered liberally in favor of defendant, as any such demonstration of a fair and just reason was sufficient to support withdrawal, unless withdrawal would pose substantial prejudice to the commonwealth. The court further noted that withdrawal had been denied in cases immediately following the commonwealth's sentencing recommendation indicating "an attempt to manipulate the system," but had been granted in cases where the request was made several days prior to trial and the defendant had asserted his innocence throughout the process.