Com. v. Meikle, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Com. v. Meikle, S.

DecidedMarch 15, 2019

Docket1374 EDA 2018

StatusUnpublished

This text of Com. v. Meikle, S. (Com. v. Meikle, S.) 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. Meikle, S., (Pa. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

J-S03032-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : SEAN MEIKLE, : : Appellant : No. 1374 EDA 2018

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 3, 2017 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0006086-2014

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OLSON, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED MARCH 15, 2019

Sean Meikle (“Meikle”) appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed

following his plea of guilty to the charges of firearms not to be carried without

a license, carrying firearms on public streets or public property in Philadelphia,

possession of an instrument of crime, terroristic threats, simple assault, and

recklessly endangering another person.1 We vacate and remand.

On February 17, 2017, Meikle entered an open guilty plea to the above-

described charges, related to his assault of a young woman. The trial court

deferred sentencing and ordered a pre-sentence investigation report.

Subsequently, the trial court sentenced Meikle to an aggregate term of 11 to

22 years in prison. Thereafter, Meikle filed post-sentence Motions, requesting

reconsideration of his sentence and the withdrawal of his guilty plea. The trial

____________________________________________

1 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6106(a)(1), 6108, 907(a), 2706(a)(1), 2701(a), 2705. J-S03032-19

court denied both Motions. Meikle filed a timely Notice of Appeal and a court-

ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement of matters complained of on

appeal.

On appeal, Meikle raises the following questions for our review:

1. Did not the [trial] court err in denying [Meikle’s] [M]otion to withdraw his guilty plea[,] where there is no evidence that [Meikle] was informed of the maximum permissible punishment, and[,] in fact[,] was misinformed in the written guilty plea colloquy?

2. Did not the [trial] court err in sentencing [Meikle] to an aggregate sentence over three times the guideline sentencing range without discussing any rationale for its sentence other than the severity of the offense?

Brief for Appellant at 4.

In his first claim, Meikle alleges that the trial court erred in denying his

Post-sentence Motion to withdraw his guilty plea. See id. at 14-17. Meikle

argues that his plea was invalid because it was not entered into knowingly,

intelligently, and voluntarily. Id. at 14-15. Meikle claims that the trial court’s

oral guilty plea colloquy was insufficient to apprise Meikle of his rights, inform

him of the maximum sentence he was facing, or determine whether Meikle

was entering a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary plea. Id. at 15, 16-17.

It is well-settled that the decision whether to permit a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea is within the sound discretion of the trial court[,] … [and] we review a trial court’s order denying a motion to withdraw a guilty plea for an abuse of discretion. Although no absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea exists in Pennsylvania, the standard applied differs depending on whether the defendant seeks to withdraw the plea before or after sentencing. When a defendant seeks to withdraw a plea after sentencing, he must demonstrate prejudice on the order of

-2- J-S03032-19

manifest injustice. … Thus, post-sentence motions for withdrawal are subject to higher scrutiny[,] since the courts strive to discourage the entry of guilty pleas as sentence-testing devices.

Manifest injustice occurs when the plea is not tendered knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily, and understandingly. In determining whether a plea is valid, the court must examine the totality of circumstances surrounding the plea. Pennsylvania law presumes a defendant who entered a guilty plea was aware of what he was doing, and the defendant bears the burden of proving otherwise.”

Commonwealth v. Hart, 174 A.3d 660, 664-65 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citations,

quotation marks and parentheticals omitted).

To ensure that a plea is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent,

Rule 590 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that a trial court conduct a separate inquiry of the defendant before accepting a guilty plea. … As the Comment to Rule 590 provides, at a minimum, the trial court should ask questions to elicit the following information:

(1) Does the defendant understand the nature of the charges to which he or she is pleading guilty or nolo contendere?

(2) Is there a factual basis for the plea?

(3) Does the defendant understand that he or she has the right to trial by jury?

(4) Does the defendant understand that he or she is presumed innocent until found guilty?

(5) Is the defendant aware of the permissible range or 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?

Hart, 174 A.3d at 667-68 (citations omitted). “Inquiry into the above six

areas is mandatory.” Commonwealth v. Ingold, 823 A.2d 917, 921 (Pa.

-3- J-S03032-19

Super. 2003), disapproved of on other grounds by Commonwealth v.

O’Berg, 880 A.2d 597 (Pa. 2005). “The purpose of [Rule 590] is to insure

that the defendant fully understands the nature of the crimes to which he or

she is pleading guilty and the rights that are being waived by the plea.”

Commonwealth v. Carter, 656 A.2d 463, 465 (Pa. 1995).

The Comment to Rule 590 further states that “nothing in the rule would

preclude the use of a written colloquy that is read, completed, signed by the

defendant, and made part of the record of the plea proceedings. [However,]

[t]his written colloquy would have to be supplemented by some on-

the-record oral examination.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 590, cmt. (emphasis added).

Here, Meikle completed a written guilty plea colloquy that included the

following admissions relevant to the instant appeal:

I can read and write English.

I have never seen a doctor or been in a hospital for any mental problems – I can understand what is going on.

I am not under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

I have not taken any medicine in the last week.

THE CHARGES I admit I committed the crime(s) of VUFA 6106A1 F3, VUFA 6108 M1, PIC M1, terroristic threats M1, SA[] M2, REAP M2,[2] and I want to plead guilty. My lawyer told me what the elements of the crime(s) are that the District Attorney must prove to convict me. ____________________________________________

2Underlined text represents blanks in the colloquy form that were filled in by hand.

-4- J-S03032-19

I know I can go to jail for up to 22.5[3] years and be fined $50[,]000 for the crimes I committed.

NO PROMISES OR THREATS Nobody promised me anything or threatened me or forced me to plead guilty. I, myself, have decided to plead guilty. I know what I say today is final.

PLEA BARGAIN OR AGREEMENT

….

There is no plea bargain of any kind, except that the District Attorney promised to:

Drop the charges of Agg Assault F1[.]

Nobody else promised me anything if I plead guilty.

I know if the judge does not agree with the plea bargain or agreement, I can withdraw my guilty plea and have a trial before a judge and jury or before a judge alone.

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