Com. v. Thomas, A. ( 2023 )

J-A05033-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
AHMAD J. THOMAS :
:
Appellant : No. 1406 EDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 25, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County
Criminal Division at CP-15-CR-0003260-2020
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MURRAY, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY MURRAY, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 6, 2023
Ahmad J. Thomas (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence
imposed after he entered a negotiated guilty plea to one count of attempted
murder and two counts of criminal conspiracy.1 Upon review, we grant the
Commonwealth’s application to cancel oral argument, strike the case from the
argument list, and affirm the judgment of sentence.
On April 25, 2022, Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea to the
above crimes. The trial court immediately sentenced Appellant, in accordance
with the terms of the plea agreement, to an aggregate sentence of 18 – 40
years in prison. Appellant subsequently filed a post-sentence motion asking
the trial court to recommend to the Board of Prisons that he serve his sentence
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 901(a) and 903(a).
J-A05033-23
in a state prison close to his home. The trial court granted the motion on May
6, 2022. Appellant never sought to withdraw his guilty plea. This timely
appeal followed.2
On January 9, 2023, Appellant filed a counseled appellate brief raising
four issues, all of which challenge the denial of Appellant’s suppression motion
prior to Appellant entering his guilty plea. See Appellant’s Brief at 3. On
January 19, 2023, the Commonwealth filed an application to cancel oral
argument because Appellant has not challenged “any of the four permissible
grounds” for appeal following the entry of a negotiated guilty plea. Application
to Cancel Oral Argument, 1/19/23, at 1-2 (unnumbered).
“Generally, upon entry of a guilty plea, a defendant waives all claims
and defenses other than those sounding in the jurisdiction of the court, the
validity of the plea, and what has been termed the ‘legality’ of the sentence
imposed[.]” Commonwealth v. Jabbie, 200 A.3d 500, 505 (Pa. Super.
2018) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “A defendant wishing
to challenge the voluntariness of a guilty plea on direct appeal must either
object during the plea colloquy or file a motion to withdraw the plea within ten
days of sentencing.” Commonwealth v. Lincoln, 72 A.3d 606, 609-10 (Pa.
Super. 2013). “Failure to employ either measure results in waiver.” Id. at
610. “Historically, Pennsylvania courts adhere to this waiver principle because
____________________________________________
2 Appellant and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
-2-
J-A05033-23
it is for the court which accepted the plea to consider and correct, in the first
instance, any error which may have been committed.” Id. (citation omitted);
see also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (issues not preserved in the trial court may not be
raised on appeal).
Here, Appellant never sought to withdraw his guilty plea. Moreover, we
agree with the Commonwealth that Appellant has waived any challenge to the
trial court’s suppression ruling. Lincoln, 72 A.3d at 609; see also
Commonwealth v. Percel, 107 A.3d 185, 197 n.14 (Pa. Super. 2014)
(appellant waived challenge to the denial of suppression by pleading guilty).
Because Appellant is precluded from challenging the denial of his suppression
motion, his appeal raising issues that pertain to suppression is wholly frivolous
and oral argument would be meaningless. Accordingly, we grant the
Commonwealth’s application to cancel oral argument and strike the case from
the argument list.
Application granted. Case stricken from argument list. Judgment of
sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/6/2023
-3-