Com. v. Corado, D.

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedApril 25, 2016
Docket1635 MDA 2015
StatusUnpublished

This text of Com. v. Corado, D. (Com. v. Corado, D.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Com. v. Corado, D., (Pa. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

J. S14007/16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA v. : : DAVID ALONSO CORADO, : No. 1635 MDA 2015 : Appellant :

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence September 21, 2015, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Criminal Division at Nos. CP-36-CR-0002897-2012, CP-36-CR-0002902-2012

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., PANELLA, J., AND STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED APRIL 25, 2016

David Alonso Corado appeals from the judgment of sentence of

September 21, 2015, following his guilty plea to drug and firearms charges.

Appointed counsel, Christopher P. Lyden, Esq., has filed a petition to

withdraw and accompanying Anders brief.1 After careful review, we grant

the withdrawal petition and affirm the judgment of sentence.

On May 31, 2013, appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea to one

count each of possession with intent to deliver (“PWID”), delivery of a

controlled substance (heroin), possession of drug paraphernalia, criminal use

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Commonwealth v. McClendon, 434 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 1981). J. S14007/16

of a communication facility, and carrying a firearm without a license. The

trial court imposed the negotiated sentence of 5-10 years, which included a

5-year mandatory minimum sentence pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 9712.1

(drug offenses committed with firearms). Appellant did not file

post-sentence motions or take a direct appeal; however, on April 9, 2014,

he filed a pro se motion for modification of sentence nunc pro tunc, which

was denied on April 14, 2014. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal on

April 30, 2014, followed by a pro se PCRA2 petition on May 30, 2014.

Counsel was appointed to represent appellant in the PCRA proceedings.

On June 6, 2014, appellant withdrew his appeal. On June 18, 2015,

the Commonwealth filed a response to appellant’s PCRA petition, conceding

that his sentence was illegal.3 On July 17, 2015, the PCRA court granted

appellant’s petition and scheduled a resentencing hearing for September 21,

2015. On that date, appellant was resentenced to an aggregate of

4-8 years’ incarceration followed by 2 years of probation. A timely notice of

appeal was filed on September 22, 2015. On September 23, 2015, appellant

was ordered to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal

within 21 days pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b); appellant complied on

2 Post-Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. 3 In Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa.Super. 2014) (en banc), appeal denied, 121 A.3d 496 (Pa. 2015), we found Section 9712.1 unconstitutional in light of Alleyne v. United States, U.S. , 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013), which held that any fact that served to aggravate the minimum sentence must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

-2- J. S14007/16

September 29, 2015, by filing a statement of intent to file an

Anders/McClendon brief in lieu of filing a statement in accordance with

Rule 1925(c)(4). (Docket #43.) The only potential issue identified for

appeal was whether the trial court imposed an illegal sentence. (Id.) On

November 3, 2015, the trial court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion. (Docket

#46.)

Counsel having filed a petition to withdraw, we reiterate that “[w]hen

presented with an Anders brief, this court may not review the merits of the

underlying issues without first passing on the request to withdraw.”

Commonwealth v. Daniels, 999 A.2d 590, 593 (Pa.Super. 2010), citing

Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 928 A.2d 287, 290 (Pa.Super. 2007)

(en banc) (citation omitted).

In order for counsel to withdraw from an appeal pursuant to Anders, certain requirements must be met, and counsel must:

(1) provide a summary of the procedural history and facts, with citations to the record;

(2) refer to anything in the record that counsel believes arguably supports the appeal;

(3) set forth counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is frivolous; and

(4) state counsel’s reasons for concluding that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel should articulate the relevant facts of record, controlling case law, and/or

-3- J. S14007/16

statutes on point that have led to the conclusion that the appeal is frivolous.

Daniels, 999 A.2d at 593, quoting Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d

349, 361 (Pa. 2009).

Upon review, we find that Attorney Lyden has complied with all of the

above requirements.4 In addition, Attorney Lyden served appellant a copy

of the Anders brief, and advised him of his right to proceed pro se or hire a

private attorney to raise any additional points he deemed worthy of this

court’s review. Appellant has not responded to counsel’s petition to

withdraw. As we find the requirements of Anders and Santiago are met,

we will proceed to the issues on appeal.

First, we observe that appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea.

When he entered the plea, he agreed to waive all non-jurisdictional defects

and defenses.

“A plea of guilty constitutes a waiver of all nonjurisdictional defects and defenses. When a defendant pleads guilty, he waives the right to challenge anything but the legality of his sentence and the validity of his plea.” Commonwealth v. Montgomery, 485 Pa. 110, 401 A.2d 318, 319 (1979) (internal citations omitted); see

4 Initially, Attorney Lyden failed to comply with Anders/Santiago. He failed to file a petition to withdraw or a letter to appellant with instructions pursuant to Anders. On February 5, 2016, this court ordered that Attorney Lyden’s brief be stricken and that on or before March 11, 2016, he file an advocate’s brief on behalf of appellant or a petition to withdraw and brief following the dictates of Anders, McClendon, and Santiago. Attorney Lyden complied on February 11, 2016, filing a petition to withdraw, including the letter to appellant setting forth his rights under Anders, and a proper Anders brief.

-4- J. S14007/16

Commonwealth v. Irby, 445 Pa. 248, 284 A.2d 738, 739 (1971) (“[I]t is settled law that all procedural and non-jurisdictional defects and defenses not previously raised were waived when he pleaded to the indictment.”).

Commonwealth v. Jones, 929 A.2d 205, 212 (Pa. 2007). Furthermore,

appellant may not challenge the discretionary aspects of the sentence,

where the terms of the sentence were made part of the negotiated plea.

Commonwealth v. Baney, 860 A.2d 127, 131 (Pa.Super. 2004), appeal

denied, 877 A.2d 459 (Pa. 2005).

Here, appellant negotiated a sentence of 5 to 10 years, which was

reduced to 4 to 8 years following Alleyne. Appellant’s sentence was within

the guidelines and was not illegal.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Alleyne v. United States
133 S. Ct. 2151 (Supreme Court, 2013)
Commonwealth v. Archer
722 A.2d 203 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1998)
Commonwealth v. D'Collanfield
805 A.2d 1244 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2002)
Com. v. CHIKONYERA
877 A.2d 459 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2005)
Commonwealth v. McClendon
434 A.2d 1185 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1981)
Commonwealth v. Montgomery
401 A.2d 318 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1979)
Commonwealth v. Grant
813 A.2d 726 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2002)
Commonwealth v. Jones
929 A.2d 205 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2007)
Commonwealth v. Irby
445 Pa. 248 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1971)
Commonwealth v. Santiago
978 A.2d 349 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2009)
Commonwealth v. Baney
860 A.2d 127 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2004)
Commonwealth v. Daniels
999 A.2d 590 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2010)
Commonwealth v. Newman
99 A.3d 86 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2014)
Commonwealth v. Treiber, S., Aplt
121 A.3d 435 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2015)
Commonwealth v. Goodwin
928 A.2d 287 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2007)
Commonwealth v. Holmes
79 A.3d 562 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Com. v. Corado, D., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/com-v-corado-d-pasuperct-2016.