J-S15023-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : JOHN THOMAS GREENE : : Appellant : No. 996 WDA 2024
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 7, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bedford County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-05-CR-0000151-2022
BEFORE: OLSON, J., SULLIVAN, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY SULLIVAN, J.: FILED: July 18, 2025
John Thomas Greene (“Greene”) appeals from the order dismissing his
first counseled petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act1 (PCRA).
We affirm.
The transcript of Greene’s negotiated nolo contendere plea hearing
discloses that on March 24, 2022, the Greenfield Township Police Department
sought the help of the Pennsylvania State Police to pursue a black Jeep. The
pursuit entered Bedford County but was terminated due to weather and safety
concerns. Later that day, one of the troopers spotted the Jeep, which Greene
was driving, and activated his lights and sirens resulting in a high-speed
chase. Greene left the roadway, traveled onto an embankment, and made
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541–9546. J-S15023-25
several turns at high speed. The trooper made an unsuccessful attempt to
stop Greene, who rammed the trooper’s vehicle to escape capture. After a
chase in which Greene drove in excess of 85 miles per hour on small, two-
lane, roads, another trooper was able to force Greene to stop the Jeep. See
N.T., 7/12/22, at 6-9.
In July 2022, Greene entered a negotiated nolo contedere plea to one
count of aggravated assault, one count fleeing or attempting to elude police
officers, one count of receiving stolen property, one count of driving under the
influence of a controlled substance (third offense), and one count of
possession with intent to deliver methamphetamines. Later that month, the
court imposed the negotiated aggregate sentence of seven to fifteen years of
imprisonment. Greene did not file a direct appeal.
On October 13, 2022, Greene filed a timely pro se PCRA petition. He
retained PCRA counsel, Christian Kerstetter, Esquire, who filed an amended
PCRA petition asserting, inter alia, that Greene’s plea counsel was ineffective
for advising Greene to waive his preliminary hearing and plead nolo contedere
to aggravated assault. See Amended Petition for Post Conviction Relief,
11/22/24, at 2. The court conducted an evidentiary hearing on Greene’s
amended petition and denied relief. See PCRA Court Order, 8/7/24. Greene
filed a timely notice of appeal. He and the PCRA court complied with Pa.R.A.P.
1925.
-2- J-S15023-25
Greene raises the following issues on appeal:
1. Did [] Greene receive ineffective assistance of counsel when no litigation was undertaken to challenge the sufficiency of the Commonwealth’s evidence as to [aggravated assault]?
2. Did [] Greene receive ineffective assistance of counsel when he was advised that he risked conviction of [aggravated assault] and should consequently consider the Commonwealth’s offer to plead nolo contedere. . . .?
Greene’s Brief at 4. Because Greene’s issues are substantially similar and
Greene offers the same argument for both issues in his brief, we address them
together.
Greene appeals from the denial of his PCRA petition. We review the
PCRA court’s denial of relief by “examining whether the PCRA court’s findings
of fact are supported by the record, and whether its conclusions of law are
free from legal error.” Commonwealth v. Flor, 259 A.3d 891, 902 (Pa.
2021). “We view the evidence of record in a light most favorable to the
Commonwealth, as the prevailing party below. We are bound by the PCRA
court’s credibility determinations, unless those determinations are not
supported by the record; however, we review the PCRA court’s legal
conclusions de novo.” Id. (internal citations omitted).
“A criminal defendant has the right to effective counsel during a plea
process as well as during trial.” Commonwealth v. Rathfon, 899 A.2d 365,
369 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted). To prevail on any claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel, a petitioner must prove that “(1) the underlying claim
has arguable merit; (2) no reasonable basis existed for counsel’s action or
-3- J-S15023-25
failure to act; and (3) the petitioner suffered prejudice as a result of counsel’s
error.” Commonwealth v. Johnson, 236 A.3d 63, 68 (Pa. Super. 2020) (en
banc). A claim that a counseled plea should be vacated on grounds of
ineffective assistance will only be granted if counsel caused the defendant to
enter an involuntary or unknowing plea. See Commonwealth v. Hickman,
799 A.2d 136, 141 (Pa. Super. 2002). “[T]he voluntariness of the plea
depends upon whether counsel’s advice was within the range of competence
demanded of attorneys in criminal cases.” Id. Where a defendant has
pleaded nolo contendere, to prove ineffective assistance he must show “there
is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have
pleaded [] and would have insisted on going to trial.” See Rathfon, 899 A.2d
at 370 (citation omitted).
We presume that “a defendant who enter[ed] a [] plea was aware of
what he was doing. He bears the burden of proving otherwise.”
Commonwealth v. Yeomans, 24 A.3d 1044, 1047 (Pa. Super. 2011).2
Where the record shows the trial court conducted a thorough plea colloquy
and the defendant understood his rights and the nature of the charges against
him, the plea is voluntary. See Commonwealth v. McCauley, 797 A.2d
920, 922 (Pa. Super. 2001). When evaluating whether a defendant made a
2 “[I]n terms of its effect upon a case, a plea of nolo contendere is treated the
same as a guilty plea.” Commonwealth v. Prieto, 206 A.3d 529, 533-34 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted).
-4- J-S15023-25
knowledgeable, voluntary plea, we look at the totality of the circumstances
surrounding the plea. See id. At a minimum, the trial court must inquire in
the following six areas:
(1) Does the defendant understand the nature of the charges to which he is pleading [nolo contendere]?
(2) Is there a factual basis for the plea?
(3) Does the defendant understand that he has a right to trial by jury?
(4) Does the defendant understand that he is presumed innocent until he is found guilty?
(5) Is the defendant aware of the permissible ranges of sentences and/or fines for the offenses charged?
(6) Is the defendant aware that the judge is not bound by the terms of any plea agreement tendered unless the judge accepts such agreement?
Id. (citation omitted); see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 590, Comment. Whether an
appellant is pleased with the outcome of his plea is immaterial to our analysis;
all that is required is that the plea was “knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently
made.” Commonwealth v. Yager, 685 A.2d 1000, 1004 (Pa. Super. 1996)
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S15023-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : JOHN THOMAS GREENE : : Appellant : No. 996 WDA 2024
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 7, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bedford County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-05-CR-0000151-2022
BEFORE: OLSON, J., SULLIVAN, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY SULLIVAN, J.: FILED: July 18, 2025
John Thomas Greene (“Greene”) appeals from the order dismissing his
first counseled petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act1 (PCRA).
We affirm.
The transcript of Greene’s negotiated nolo contendere plea hearing
discloses that on March 24, 2022, the Greenfield Township Police Department
sought the help of the Pennsylvania State Police to pursue a black Jeep. The
pursuit entered Bedford County but was terminated due to weather and safety
concerns. Later that day, one of the troopers spotted the Jeep, which Greene
was driving, and activated his lights and sirens resulting in a high-speed
chase. Greene left the roadway, traveled onto an embankment, and made
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541–9546. J-S15023-25
several turns at high speed. The trooper made an unsuccessful attempt to
stop Greene, who rammed the trooper’s vehicle to escape capture. After a
chase in which Greene drove in excess of 85 miles per hour on small, two-
lane, roads, another trooper was able to force Greene to stop the Jeep. See
N.T., 7/12/22, at 6-9.
In July 2022, Greene entered a negotiated nolo contedere plea to one
count of aggravated assault, one count fleeing or attempting to elude police
officers, one count of receiving stolen property, one count of driving under the
influence of a controlled substance (third offense), and one count of
possession with intent to deliver methamphetamines. Later that month, the
court imposed the negotiated aggregate sentence of seven to fifteen years of
imprisonment. Greene did not file a direct appeal.
On October 13, 2022, Greene filed a timely pro se PCRA petition. He
retained PCRA counsel, Christian Kerstetter, Esquire, who filed an amended
PCRA petition asserting, inter alia, that Greene’s plea counsel was ineffective
for advising Greene to waive his preliminary hearing and plead nolo contedere
to aggravated assault. See Amended Petition for Post Conviction Relief,
11/22/24, at 2. The court conducted an evidentiary hearing on Greene’s
amended petition and denied relief. See PCRA Court Order, 8/7/24. Greene
filed a timely notice of appeal. He and the PCRA court complied with Pa.R.A.P.
1925.
-2- J-S15023-25
Greene raises the following issues on appeal:
1. Did [] Greene receive ineffective assistance of counsel when no litigation was undertaken to challenge the sufficiency of the Commonwealth’s evidence as to [aggravated assault]?
2. Did [] Greene receive ineffective assistance of counsel when he was advised that he risked conviction of [aggravated assault] and should consequently consider the Commonwealth’s offer to plead nolo contedere. . . .?
Greene’s Brief at 4. Because Greene’s issues are substantially similar and
Greene offers the same argument for both issues in his brief, we address them
together.
Greene appeals from the denial of his PCRA petition. We review the
PCRA court’s denial of relief by “examining whether the PCRA court’s findings
of fact are supported by the record, and whether its conclusions of law are
free from legal error.” Commonwealth v. Flor, 259 A.3d 891, 902 (Pa.
2021). “We view the evidence of record in a light most favorable to the
Commonwealth, as the prevailing party below. We are bound by the PCRA
court’s credibility determinations, unless those determinations are not
supported by the record; however, we review the PCRA court’s legal
conclusions de novo.” Id. (internal citations omitted).
“A criminal defendant has the right to effective counsel during a plea
process as well as during trial.” Commonwealth v. Rathfon, 899 A.2d 365,
369 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted). To prevail on any claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel, a petitioner must prove that “(1) the underlying claim
has arguable merit; (2) no reasonable basis existed for counsel’s action or
-3- J-S15023-25
failure to act; and (3) the petitioner suffered prejudice as a result of counsel’s
error.” Commonwealth v. Johnson, 236 A.3d 63, 68 (Pa. Super. 2020) (en
banc). A claim that a counseled plea should be vacated on grounds of
ineffective assistance will only be granted if counsel caused the defendant to
enter an involuntary or unknowing plea. See Commonwealth v. Hickman,
799 A.2d 136, 141 (Pa. Super. 2002). “[T]he voluntariness of the plea
depends upon whether counsel’s advice was within the range of competence
demanded of attorneys in criminal cases.” Id. Where a defendant has
pleaded nolo contendere, to prove ineffective assistance he must show “there
is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have
pleaded [] and would have insisted on going to trial.” See Rathfon, 899 A.2d
at 370 (citation omitted).
We presume that “a defendant who enter[ed] a [] plea was aware of
what he was doing. He bears the burden of proving otherwise.”
Commonwealth v. Yeomans, 24 A.3d 1044, 1047 (Pa. Super. 2011).2
Where the record shows the trial court conducted a thorough plea colloquy
and the defendant understood his rights and the nature of the charges against
him, the plea is voluntary. See Commonwealth v. McCauley, 797 A.2d
920, 922 (Pa. Super. 2001). When evaluating whether a defendant made a
2 “[I]n terms of its effect upon a case, a plea of nolo contendere is treated the
same as a guilty plea.” Commonwealth v. Prieto, 206 A.3d 529, 533-34 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted).
-4- J-S15023-25
knowledgeable, voluntary plea, we look at the totality of the circumstances
surrounding the plea. See id. At a minimum, the trial court must inquire in
the following six areas:
(1) Does the defendant understand the nature of the charges to which he is pleading [nolo contendere]?
(2) Is there a factual basis for the plea?
(3) Does the defendant understand that he has a right to trial by jury?
(4) Does the defendant understand that he is presumed innocent until he is found guilty?
(5) Is the defendant aware of the permissible ranges of sentences and/or fines for the offenses charged?
(6) Is the defendant aware that the judge is not bound by the terms of any plea agreement tendered unless the judge accepts such agreement?
Id. (citation omitted); see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 590, Comment. Whether an
appellant is pleased with the outcome of his plea is immaterial to our analysis;
all that is required is that the plea was “knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently
made.” Commonwealth v. Yager, 685 A.2d 1000, 1004 (Pa. Super. 1996)
(en banc). Accord Commonwealth v. Bedell, 954 A.3d 1209, 1212 (Pa.
Super. 2008).
Greene asserts his counsel erroneously evaluated Greene’s risk of
conviction for aggravated assault. See Greene’s Brief at 18. According to
Greene, “the Commonwealth’s evidence did not support a finding of specific
intent to cause serious bodily injury to an officer,” an essential element of
-5- J-S15023-25
aggravated assault. See id. at 11. At its core, Greene’s argument challenges
the strategic choices and legal conclusions of his plea counsel. As our Court
has recognized, “strategic choices made by trial counsel after thorough
investigation of law and facts relevant to plausible options are virtually
unchallengeable; and strategic choices made after less than complete
investigation are reasonable precisely to the extent that reasonable
professional judgments support the limitations on investigation.”
Commonwealth v. Alceus, 315 A.3d 853, 864 (Pa. Super. 2024) (citation
omitted). Greene does not allege plea counsel was ill-prepared. Instead, he
challenges plea counsel’s legal opinion, asserting the evidence would not have
sustained an aggravated assault conviction and counsel was ineffective for
advising him to plead guilty to that offense. See Greene’s Brief at 20.
However, during his oral and written plea colloquies, Greene acknowledged he
had reviewed the charges with his attorney, N.T., 7/12/22, at 5, he
understood he had an absolute right to a jury trial, id., he believed a jury
could convict him of all the crimes, id. at 9, and he unequivocally accepted
full responsibility for his involvement in the crime. See Written Plea
Agreement, 7/12/22 at 2.
Additionally, at the PCRA hearing, Greene’s counsel testified to
reviewing the numerous police “dash cam” videos, and successfully
negotiating multiple, more favorable plea deals. See N.T., 7/12/22, at 6-18.
After reviewing the videos and the other evidence, Greene’s plea counsel
-6- J-S15023-25
testified he worried the jury could find that Greene’s collision with the trooper’s
car was intentional considering the long chase and Greene’s intentional,
dangerous acts to evade the troopers’ multiple attempts to stop him. See id.
at 23.
Counsel’s concern about the risk the jury would convict Greene of
aggravated assault based on the evidence and his success in obtaining a
lesser, negotiated sentence was a reasonable decision based on the facts and
the law. For that reason, Greene’s claim fails without further analysis. See
Commonwealth v. Alexander, 296 A.3d 1, 4 (Pa. Super. 2023).
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we affirm the denial of
Greene’s PCRA petition.
Order affirmed.
DATE: 7/18/2025
-7-