Com. v. Losey, D. ( 2015 )

J-S09034-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
DENNIS CHRIS LOSEY,
Appellant No. 1318 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered July 16, 2014,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford County,
Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-20-CR-0000455-2013
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., BOWES and ALLEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY ALLEN, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 11, 2015
Dennis Chris Losey (“Appellant”) appeals from the judgment of
sentence imposed following the entry of his negotiated guilty plea to
aggravated indecent assault, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3125(a)(8).
Appellant filed a timely direct appeal. The trial court directed
compliance with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and Appellant filed a concise statement
in which he asserted the ineffectiveness of trial counsel. Appellant presents
us with a single issue:
Was the Appellant denied effective assistance of counsel
resulting in his conviction based on an unknown, involuntary
plea of guilty which was legally invalid, and does this require the
case to be remanded for trial or an evidentiary hearing?
J-S09034-15
Appellant’s Brief at 7. Appellant seeks remand “to the trial court for a trial,
or an evidentiary hearing on [the] voluntariness of his plea of guilty.” Id. at
13.
Both the trial court and the Commonwealth, citing Commonwealth v.
Grant, 813 A.2d 726, 738 (Pa. 2002), recognize that a defendant should
wait to raise claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel until collateral
review. Recently, in Commonwealth v. Stollar, 84 A.3d 635, 652 (Pa.
2014), our Supreme Court held that ineffectiveness of counsel claims “must
now be deferred to PCRA review, where there will be an opportunity for
greater development [].” Id.Furthermore, although Commonwealth v. Bomar, 826 A.2d 831 (Pa.
2003) (creating an exception for raising ineffectiveness claims on direct
appeal when the relevant ineffectiveness claims have been properly raised
and preserved in the trial court, the trial court holds a hearing on those
claims, and the trial court addresses the merits of the claims in a subsequent
opinion) has been disapproved by Stollar, supra and Commonwealth v.
Holmes, 79 A.3d 562 (Pa. 2013), we nonetheless note that our review of
the record confirms the trial court’s observation that “there were no
evidentiary hearings nor any argument with regard to the ineffective
assistance of counsel issues raised by [Appellant] for the first time in his
direct appeal from the judgment of sentence.” Trial Court Opinion, 8/29/14,
at 2.
-2-
J-S09034-15
Accordingly, we affirm with the judgment of sentence without
prejudice to Appellant to seek collateral relief under the Post-Conviction
Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9541-46.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
P.J.E. Ford Elliott joins the Memorandum.
Judge Bowes concurs in the result.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/11/2015
-3-