J-A06044-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : WADE HAMPTON SHAFFER JR. : : Appellant : No. 140 WDA 2023
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered January 3, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Venango County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-61-CR-0000234-2021, CP-61-CR-0000237-2021, CP-61-CR-0000316-2021
BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., PANELLA, P.J.E., and BECK, J.
MEMORANDUM BY BECK, J.: FILED: March 13, 2024
Wade Hampton Shaffer Jr. (“Shaffer”) appeals from the order entered
by the Venango County Court of Common Pleas dismissing his petition
pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”).1 On appeal, Shaffer
challenges the voluntariness of his guilty plea based on alleged prosecutorial
misconduct. Because Shaffer has waived the sole issue he raises on appeal,
we affirm.
The charges in this case stem from an incident that occurred on March
29, 2021. On that date, Shaffer threatened Mariah Reagle (“Reagle”) with a
firearm because she refused to give him a ride in her vehicle. Shaffer
____________________________________________
1 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. J-A06044-24
subsequently made several attempts to contact Reagle, both on his own and
through others, to pressure her not to press charges against him.
The Commonwealth charged Shaffer at three separate docket numbers
with numerous offenses, including simple assault, harassment, persons not to
possess a firearm, theft by unlawful taking (of a firearm), criminal coercion,
criminal trespass, false imprisonment, kidnapping with the intent to inflict
bodily injury on or to terrorize the victim or another, intimidation of witnesses,
and stalking. On July 8, 2021, Shaffer pled guilty to simple assault, criminal
coercion, and stalking. In exchange for his plea, the Commonwealth agreed
to nolle pros his remaining charges, including the firearm-related offenses,
and to recommend a sentence of four to eight years of incarceration. The trial
court accepted the guilty plea and imposed the agreed upon sentence on
September 27, 2021. Shaffer filed a motion for reconsideration of his
sentence, which the trial court denied. Shaffer did not pursue a direct appeal.
On February 28, 2022, Shaffer timely filed a pro se PCRA petition, his
first, in which he alleged that ineffective assistance of counsel unlawfully
induced him to plead guilty to crimes for which he was innocent. Specifically,
Shaffer asserted that his plea counsel was aware the firearm that the
Commonwealth alleged he had stolen was, in fact, in the possession of the
rightful owner and that plea counsel should have used this information to get
the Commonwealth to withdraw his firearms charges. Shaffer averred that it
-2- J-A06044-24
was the threat of the sentences relating to his firearms charges that induced
him to plead guilty to crimes he did not commit.
The PCRA court appointed counsel to represent Shaffer; PCRA counsel
did not file an amended petition. On October 6, 2022, the PCRA court held a
hearing on Shaffer’s petition. At the hearing, Shaffer, through counsel,
expressly abandoned his ineffective assistance of counsel claim in favor of a
claim that prosecutorial misconduct unlawfully induced Shaffer to plead guilty.
Shaffer argued that the Commonwealth should have withdrawn his firearms
charges because it was aware that the allegedly stolen firearm was in the
possession of the firearm’s owner, and the Commonwealth’s decision not to
withdraw his firearms charges placed him in a weaker negotiating position for
his plea bargain.
On January 3, 2023, the PCRA court denied Shaffer’s PCRA petition. It
found that Shaffer had abandoned his ineffective assistance of counsel claim
and waived his claim that prosecutorial misconduct unlawfully induced his
guilty plea because he did not raise it in his PCRA petition.
On February 2, 2023, Shaffer, despite being represented by PCRA
counsel, filed a pro se notice of appeal.2 On April 21, 2023, in response to a
2 We note that Shaffer filed a single notice of appeal that listed all three trial court docket numbers. “[W]here a single order resolves issues arising on more than one docket, separate notices of appeal must be filed for each case” and the failure to do so “will result in quashal of the appeal.” Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969, 971 (Pa. 2018), overruled in part, Commonwealth (Footnote Continued Next Page)
-3- J-A06044-24
request by Shaffer for the removal of PCRA counsel, this Court issued an order
directing the PCRA court to determine whether he remained represented by
PCRA counsel or whether he was entitled to substitute counsel. On April 26,
2023, the PCRA court entered an order removing PCRA counsel and appointing
substitute counsel for Shaffer’s PCRA appeal.
On appeal, Shaffer presents one issue for our review:
Whether the [PCRA court] erred as [a] matter [of law] or abused its discretion in denying [Shaffer]’s PCRA petition and denying that [Shaffer]’s guilty plea and sentence be vacated due to the prosecution failing to disclose that the firearms had been found, which said charge of [t]heft of a [f]irearm induced [Shaffer] to enter into a guilty plea.
Shaffer’s Brief at 5.
Shaffer argues that the PCRA court erred in dismissing his claim that his
guilty plea was unlawfully induced by prosecutorial misconduct. Id. at 8-13.
Shaffer asserts that the Commonwealth did not negotiate his plea in good faith
v. Young, 265 A.3d 462, 477 (Pa. 2021) (reaffirming Walker, but concluding that Pa.R.A.P. 902 permits an appellate court, in its discretion, to allow for the correction of such an error); see also Pa.R.A.P. 902. This Court has concluded, however, that a breakdown in the operations of the court, which excuses strict compliance with Walker, occurs when the lower court does not inform a defendant of his appellate rights or determine on the record that the defendant has been advised of his appellate rights. Commonwealth v. Floyd, 257 A.3d 13, 17 (Pa. Super. 2020); see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 908(E) (stating that a PCRA court “shall advise the defendant of the right to appeal from the final order disposing of the petition and of the time limits within which the appeal must be filed”). Here, the record reflects that the PCRA court failed to inform Shaffer of his appellate rights. We therefore conclude that a breakdown in the court’s operations, like the one in Floyd, occurred in this case, and we decline to quash this appeal.
-4- J-A06044-24
because it did not inform him that the allegedly stolen firearm had been found
in the possession of the owner. Id. at 12. Shaffer contends that had he
known this information, he would have had a defense to his firearms charges
and would not have felt pressured into pleading guilty. Id. Shaffer asserts
that the Commonwealth, in failing to disclose the information related to the
firearm at issue, violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).3 Shaffer’s
Brief at 12-13. Shaffer thus claims that he did not knowingly and voluntarily
enter his guilty plea. Id. at 12.
We review the denial of PCRA 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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-A06044-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : WADE HAMPTON SHAFFER JR. : : Appellant : No. 140 WDA 2023
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered January 3, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Venango County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-61-CR-0000234-2021, CP-61-CR-0000237-2021, CP-61-CR-0000316-2021
BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., PANELLA, P.J.E., and BECK, J.
MEMORANDUM BY BECK, J.: FILED: March 13, 2024
Wade Hampton Shaffer Jr. (“Shaffer”) appeals from the order entered
by the Venango County Court of Common Pleas dismissing his petition
pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”).1 On appeal, Shaffer
challenges the voluntariness of his guilty plea based on alleged prosecutorial
misconduct. Because Shaffer has waived the sole issue he raises on appeal,
we affirm.
The charges in this case stem from an incident that occurred on March
29, 2021. On that date, Shaffer threatened Mariah Reagle (“Reagle”) with a
firearm because she refused to give him a ride in her vehicle. Shaffer
____________________________________________
1 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. J-A06044-24
subsequently made several attempts to contact Reagle, both on his own and
through others, to pressure her not to press charges against him.
The Commonwealth charged Shaffer at three separate docket numbers
with numerous offenses, including simple assault, harassment, persons not to
possess a firearm, theft by unlawful taking (of a firearm), criminal coercion,
criminal trespass, false imprisonment, kidnapping with the intent to inflict
bodily injury on or to terrorize the victim or another, intimidation of witnesses,
and stalking. On July 8, 2021, Shaffer pled guilty to simple assault, criminal
coercion, and stalking. In exchange for his plea, the Commonwealth agreed
to nolle pros his remaining charges, including the firearm-related offenses,
and to recommend a sentence of four to eight years of incarceration. The trial
court accepted the guilty plea and imposed the agreed upon sentence on
September 27, 2021. Shaffer filed a motion for reconsideration of his
sentence, which the trial court denied. Shaffer did not pursue a direct appeal.
On February 28, 2022, Shaffer timely filed a pro se PCRA petition, his
first, in which he alleged that ineffective assistance of counsel unlawfully
induced him to plead guilty to crimes for which he was innocent. Specifically,
Shaffer asserted that his plea counsel was aware the firearm that the
Commonwealth alleged he had stolen was, in fact, in the possession of the
rightful owner and that plea counsel should have used this information to get
the Commonwealth to withdraw his firearms charges. Shaffer averred that it
-2- J-A06044-24
was the threat of the sentences relating to his firearms charges that induced
him to plead guilty to crimes he did not commit.
The PCRA court appointed counsel to represent Shaffer; PCRA counsel
did not file an amended petition. On October 6, 2022, the PCRA court held a
hearing on Shaffer’s petition. At the hearing, Shaffer, through counsel,
expressly abandoned his ineffective assistance of counsel claim in favor of a
claim that prosecutorial misconduct unlawfully induced Shaffer to plead guilty.
Shaffer argued that the Commonwealth should have withdrawn his firearms
charges because it was aware that the allegedly stolen firearm was in the
possession of the firearm’s owner, and the Commonwealth’s decision not to
withdraw his firearms charges placed him in a weaker negotiating position for
his plea bargain.
On January 3, 2023, the PCRA court denied Shaffer’s PCRA petition. It
found that Shaffer had abandoned his ineffective assistance of counsel claim
and waived his claim that prosecutorial misconduct unlawfully induced his
guilty plea because he did not raise it in his PCRA petition.
On February 2, 2023, Shaffer, despite being represented by PCRA
counsel, filed a pro se notice of appeal.2 On April 21, 2023, in response to a
2 We note that Shaffer filed a single notice of appeal that listed all three trial court docket numbers. “[W]here a single order resolves issues arising on more than one docket, separate notices of appeal must be filed for each case” and the failure to do so “will result in quashal of the appeal.” Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969, 971 (Pa. 2018), overruled in part, Commonwealth (Footnote Continued Next Page)
-3- J-A06044-24
request by Shaffer for the removal of PCRA counsel, this Court issued an order
directing the PCRA court to determine whether he remained represented by
PCRA counsel or whether he was entitled to substitute counsel. On April 26,
2023, the PCRA court entered an order removing PCRA counsel and appointing
substitute counsel for Shaffer’s PCRA appeal.
On appeal, Shaffer presents one issue for our review:
Whether the [PCRA court] erred as [a] matter [of law] or abused its discretion in denying [Shaffer]’s PCRA petition and denying that [Shaffer]’s guilty plea and sentence be vacated due to the prosecution failing to disclose that the firearms had been found, which said charge of [t]heft of a [f]irearm induced [Shaffer] to enter into a guilty plea.
Shaffer’s Brief at 5.
Shaffer argues that the PCRA court erred in dismissing his claim that his
guilty plea was unlawfully induced by prosecutorial misconduct. Id. at 8-13.
Shaffer asserts that the Commonwealth did not negotiate his plea in good faith
v. Young, 265 A.3d 462, 477 (Pa. 2021) (reaffirming Walker, but concluding that Pa.R.A.P. 902 permits an appellate court, in its discretion, to allow for the correction of such an error); see also Pa.R.A.P. 902. This Court has concluded, however, that a breakdown in the operations of the court, which excuses strict compliance with Walker, occurs when the lower court does not inform a defendant of his appellate rights or determine on the record that the defendant has been advised of his appellate rights. Commonwealth v. Floyd, 257 A.3d 13, 17 (Pa. Super. 2020); see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 908(E) (stating that a PCRA court “shall advise the defendant of the right to appeal from the final order disposing of the petition and of the time limits within which the appeal must be filed”). Here, the record reflects that the PCRA court failed to inform Shaffer of his appellate rights. We therefore conclude that a breakdown in the court’s operations, like the one in Floyd, occurred in this case, and we decline to quash this appeal.
-4- J-A06044-24
because it did not inform him that the allegedly stolen firearm had been found
in the possession of the owner. Id. at 12. Shaffer contends that had he
known this information, he would have had a defense to his firearms charges
and would not have felt pressured into pleading guilty. Id. Shaffer asserts
that the Commonwealth, in failing to disclose the information related to the
firearm at issue, violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).3 Shaffer’s
Brief at 12-13. Shaffer thus claims that he did not knowingly and voluntarily
enter his guilty plea. Id. at 12.
We review the denial of PCRA 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. Busanet,
54 A.3d 35, 45 (Pa. 2012). “Our scope of review is limited to the findings of
the PCRA court and the evidence of record, viewed in the light most favorable
to the party who prevailed in the PCRA court proceeding.” Id.
A petitioner may obtain relief pursuant to the PCRA by proving that his
guilty plea was “unlawfully induced where the circumstances make it likely
that the inducement caused the petitioner to plead guilty and the petitioner is
innocent.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)(iii). Importantly, however, the PCRA does
not permit claims that have “been previously litigated or waived.” Id.§
3 In Brady, the United States Supreme Court held that “suppression by the prosecution of favorable evidence to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment[.]” Brady, 373 U.S. at 87.
-5- J-A06044-24
9543(a)(3). Additionally, Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 902(B)
states that “[e]ach ground relied upon in support of the relief requested shall
be stated in the [PCRA] petition” and that the “[f]ailure to state such a ground
in the petition shall preclude the defendant from raising that ground in any
proceeding for post-conviction collateral relief.” Pa.Crim.P. 902(B). Thus,
“[i]t is well-settled that issues not raised in a PCRA petition cannot be
considered on appeal.” Commonwealth v. Ousley, 21 A.3d 1238, 1242 (Pa.
Super. 2011).
After careful review, we conclude that Shaffer waived his challenge to
the validity of his plea based on prosecutorial misconduct because he did not
raise this claim in his PCRA petition.4 See Pa.R.Crim.P. 902(B); see also
PCRA Petition, 2/28/2022, at 4. Likewise, Shaffer has waived his Brady claim
because he did not raise it in his PCRA petition. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 902(B).
Accordingly, because Shaffer has waived his sole issue on appeal, he is not
entitled to relief.5
4 Moreover, Shaffer’s prosecutorial misconduct claim is also waived because he did not raise it in a direct appeal. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9544(b) (An issue is deemed waived under the PCRA “if the petitioner could have raised it but failed to do so before trial, at trial, during unitary review, on appeal or in a prior state postconviction proceeding”); see also Commonwealth v. Wholaver, 177 A.3d 136, 174 (Pa. 2018) (holding that claims of prosecutorial misconduct that a petitioner could have raised on direct appeal are waived for purposes of the PCRA).
5 We further note that as part of the plea agreement, the charges related to the firearm were nolle prossed. Moreover, Shaffer explicitly stated during the (Footnote Continued Next Page)
-6- J-A06044-24
Order affirmed.
3/13/2024
guilty plea colloquy that he was guilty of the remaining offenses. N.T., 7/8/2021, at 8-9; see also Commonwealth v. Felix, 303 A.3d 816, 821 (Pa. Super. 2023) (stating that “a defendant is bound by his statements at his plea colloquy and may not assert grounds for withdrawing the plea that contradict statements made when he entered the plea.”) (citation omitted).
-7-