Com. v. Reddick, Q. ( 2014 )

J-S45011-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
QUINZELL REDDICK,
Appellant No. 485 EDA 2013
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 7, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0009191-2011
BEFORE: BOWES, WECHT, and FITZGERALD,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED AUGUST 11, 2014
Quinzell Reddick appeals from the aggregate judgment of sentence of
twenty-five to fifty years incarceration imposed by the trial court after he
entered a guilty plea to third-degree murder, attempted murder, possession
license. We affirm.
The Commonwealth relayed the following facts at the guilty plea
[O]n January 12th of 2011 at about 11:20 p.m. the
defendant was inside a car with the decedent who was driving
the car, Correal Combs and Ms. Erica Rosa, who is the front seat
passenger. The defendant got out of the back of the car as did
Mr. Combs get out [of] the front of the car. The defendant went
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S45011-14
around the back of the car and approached Mr. Combs, pulled
out a .45 caliber semi-automatic handgun and started shooting
Mr. Combs. Mr. Combs ran down the street, this was 28th Street
between Somerset and Lehigh. He was hit multiple times by the
defendant.
The defendant proceeded towards Mr. Combs who was
door and turned and looked at Ms. Rosa who was in the front
and struck Ms. Rosa. She fled from the car, actually in the same
direction of Mr. Combs, towards Lehigh Avenue. She was shot
twice in the back, bullets exited her chest. She flagged down a
car on Lehigh Avenue, police responded, and she was taken to
the hospital where she stayed for weeks but recovered and was
eventually released.
The defendant returned to Mr. Combs and shot Mr. Combs
while he was down on the ground. Mr. Combs was shot a total
of 12 times from his legs through his torso and his neck. He was
taken from the scene. He was pronounced [dead] at Temple
Hospital. He was then taken to the Office of the Medical
Examiner, Doctor Blanchard examined Mr. Combs and found to a
reasonable degree of professional medical certainty that
Mr. Combs had been shot those 12 times. The manner of death
and the cause of death were gunshot wounds and homicide.
The defendant did not have license in the state of
Pennsylvania to carry a handgun concealed on his person or in a
car.
N.T., 12/12/12, 68-70.
Prior to the Commonwealth setting forth the above-mentioned facts, a
jury had been selected to try Appellant and the case was ready to proceed to
trial that day. The court thoroughly colloquied Appellant on the record.
Appellant also completed a written guilty plea colloquy. The plea agreement
reached with the Commonwealth was that it would request a twenty-five to
fifty year sentence and drop the first-degree murder charge. The court did
-2-
J-S45011-14
not sentence Appellant that same date at his request, but noted that it
would not permit him to withdraw his plea. At sentencing, however,
Appellant asked to withdraw his plea. He averred that his plea was coerced
by counsel and that he did not understand that the maximum recommended
sentence was fifty years. At one point, Appellant asked to be allowed to
proceed to trial to maintain his innocence where his plea had been entered
aforementioned sentence. This appeal ensued. The court directed Appellant
to file and serve a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained
of on appeal. Appellant complied, asserting that his plea was not knowingly,
intelligently, and voluntarily entered. The court authored its Pa.R.A.P.
plea, p
Appellant argues that under Commonwealth v. Forbes, 299 A.2d
268 (Pa. 1973), and it progeny, because he sought to withdraw his plea
prior to sentencing and asserted his innocence, he is entitled to relief.
Appellant, quoting Commonwealth v. Carrasquillo, 78 A.3d 1120(Pa.Super. 2013) allowance of appeal granted 86 A.3d 830 (Pa. 2014),
-3-
J-S45011-14
highlights that Forbes set forth that a trial court should allow the withdrawal
of a plea before sentencing for any fair and just reason absent the
prosecution being substantially prejudiced. According to Appellant, in
requesting to withdraw his plea, he asserted that he was innocent before the
court imposed its sentence. Significantly, he no longer contends in his legal
argument that the plea was the product of coercion or confusion.
The Commonwealth begins its reply with a waiver argument. It first
maintains that Appellant did not clearly assert his innocence at the
sentencing hearing. In this respect, the Commonwealth acknowledges that
maintain [his] innocence and not allow [him] to make a tactical decision
N.T., 2/7/13, at 10. However, it
reference to
Id. at 20.
In addition, the Commonwealth contends that Appellant did not include
within his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement a claim that he should be
permitted to withdraw his plea based on an assertion of innocence. Rather,
according to the Commonwealth, Appellant set forth that his plea was not
-4-
J-S45011-14
knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered and he was coerced into
pleading guilty.
With regard to
disputes that Appellant is entitled to the more liberal withdrawal standard
normally associated with pre-sentencing requests. In leveling this aspect of
he more rigorous standard
for post-
Commonwealth v. Lesko, 467 A.2d
307, 310 (Pa. 1983)). The Commonwealth argues that because Appellant
entered a negotiated plea with an agreed upon sentence, which the court
had accepted, the term of his incarceration was already set.1 Accordingly, it
suggests that the post-sentence standard should apply. Under that
standard, a defendant must show a manifest injustice would result if he is
not permitted to withdraw his plea.
It further highlights that the trial court engaged in a lengthy oral
colloquy with Appellant regarding his plea, and Appellant completed a
written guilty plea colloquy. These colloquies demonstrate that Appellant
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily was pleading guilty. Moreover, the
Commonwealth points out that, in the post-sentence withdrawal context, a
____________________________________________
1
We note that the sentence was not agreed upon, only that the
Commonwealth agreed to recommend that sentence.
-5-
J-S45011-14
defendant is bound by statements he makes under oath and cannot attempt
to withdraw his plea based on statements that contradict his earlier plea.
The Commonwealth adds that even applying the more liberal pre-
sentence withdrawal standard, Appellant did not demonstrate a fair and just
reason to withdraw his plea. Relying on Commonwealth v. Walker, 26
A.3d 525 (Pa.Super. 2011), and Commonwealth v. Tennison, 969 A.2d
time reference to innocence was not a clear assertion of innocence.
We agree that Appellant waived his issue by not including it within his
1. Defendant Quinzell Reddick states that his negotiated guilty
plea was not given knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily, for
the following reasons:
a. Defendant states that his plea was coerced and that he
was confused at the time of the plea.
b.
prior to sentencing.
c. The court committed substantial legal error, unduly
motion to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial.
d. The defendant states that he did not understand his
sentence as it related to maximum and minimum
sentences.
e. In his Form AOPC 2006, Revision 09-30-2010, Colloquy
for Plea of Guilty, the permissible range of sentence
section was not listed.
-6-
J-S45011-14
appeal, 7/8/13.
Thus, it is clear that Appellant did not maintain in his 1925(b)
statement that the grounds for which he was seeking to withdraw his plea
was an assertion of innocence. Since Appellant abandoned the issues in his
Rule 1925(b) statement, he must await collateral review to litigate the
merits of his current underlying claim.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Justice Fitzgerald Concurs in the Result.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/11/2014
-7-