Com. v. Spears, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Com. v. Spears, S.

DecidedAugust 16, 2024

Docket1602 MDA 2023

StatusUnpublished

This text of Com. v. Spears, S. (Com. v. Spears, 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. Spears, S., (Pa. Ct. App. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

J-S14026-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : SHAUN MICHAEL SPEARS : : Appellant : No. 1602 MDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 19, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-28-CR-0000137-2021

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., PANELLA, P.J.E., and MURRAY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.E.: FILED: AUGUST 16, 2024

Shaun Michael Spears appeals from the judgment of sentence entered

in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas after his entry of a negotiated

guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to commit theft.1 Additionally, counsel

has petitioned to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967). We affirm the judgment of sentence and grant counsel’s petition.

On March 2, 2021, Spears was charged by criminal information with

conspiracy to commit theft based on events alleged to have occurred on June

28, 2020.

After waiving arraignment, a bench warrant was issued after Spears

failed to appear for a scheduled call of the list. A few months later, Spears

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 903(a), 3921(a). J-S14026-24

was apprehended, and was later released on his previous bail conditions.

Another bench warrant was subsequently issued when Spears again failed to

appear for call of the list. Over a year later, Spears was apprehended and new

bail conditions were imposed.

Finally, on October 19, 2023, Spears entered a guilty plea to conspiracy

to commit theft. The court sentenced Spears the same day, in accordance with

a negotiated plea agreement, to time served, followed by 36 months of

probation. This timely appeal followed. Counsel has since filed a petition to

withdraw and an Anders brief. Spears has not filed a reply.

Before reaching Spears’ issue, we must consider counsel’s request to

withdraw. See Commonwealth v. Lilley, 978 A.2d 995, 997 (Pa. Super.

2009).

Court-appointed counsel who seek to withdraw from representing an appellant on direct appeal on the basis that the appeal is frivolous must:

(1) petition the court for leave to withdraw stating that, after making a conscientious examination of the record, counsel has determined that the appeal would be frivolous; (2) file a brief referring to anything that arguably might support the appeal but which does not resemble a “no-merit” letter or amicus curiae brief; and (3) furnish a copy of the brief to the defendant and advise the defendant of his or her right to retain new counsel or raise any additional points that he or she deems worthy of the court’s attention.

Id. (citation and most quotation marks omitted). Further, Anders briefs must

contain “a discussion of counsel’s reasons for believing that the client’s appeal

is frivolous[.]” Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349, 360 (Pa. 2009).

-2- J-S14026-24

Instantly, counsel’s Anders brief and application to withdraw

substantially comply with the applicable technical requirements and reveal he

has made “a conscientious examination of the record [and] determined the

appeal would be frivolous[.]” Lilley, 978 A.2d at 997 (citation omitted).

Additionally, the record establishes counsel served Spears with a copy of the

Anders brief and application to withdraw, and a letter of notice, which advised

Spears of his right to retain new counsel or to proceed pro se and raise

additional issues with this Court. See id.; see also Petition for Leave to

Withdraw as Counsel, 2/20/24, Exhibit A, at 1. Further, the application and

brief cite “to anything that arguably might support the appeal[.]” Lilley, 978

A.2d at 997 (citation omitted); see also Anders Brief, at 9-14. As noted by

our Supreme Court in Santiago, the fact that some of counsel’s statements

arguably support the frivolity of the appeal does not violate the requirements

of Anders. See Santiago, 978 A.2d at 360-61.

Having concluded counsel’s petition and brief substantially comply with

the technical Anders requirements, we must “conduct [our] own review of

the trial court’s proceedings and render an independent judgment as to

whether the appeal is, in fact, wholly frivolous.” Lilley, 978 A.2d at 998

(citation omitted).

The Anders brief raises one question for our review: Was Spears’ guilty

plea knowing, voluntary, and intelligent? See Anders Brief, at 7.

-3- J-S14026-24

“A plea of guilty effectively waives all nonjurisdictional defects and

defenses.” Commonwealth v. Hudson, 156 A.3d 1194, 1197 (Pa. Super.

2017) (citation omitted). Moreover, the trial court suggests Spears has waived

his claim for his failure to raise it below at any time.2 See Trial Court Opinion,

1/8/24, at 3.

“To preserve an issue related to a guilty plea, an appellant must either

object at the sentence colloquy or otherwise raise the issue at the sentencing

hearing or through a post-sentence motion.” Commonwealth v. Monjaras-

Amaya, 163 A.3d 466, 469 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation, internal quotation

marks, and brackets omitted). This rule allows a trial court to correct any

errors in the first instance, thereby promoting judicial efficiency. See id.

Instantly, Spears did not challenge his guilty plea at sentencing. Nor did

he raise it in a post-sentence motion. Therefore, we deem this issue waived

for our review. See id.

Even if not waived, Spears’ issue would not merit relief.

Our law is clear that, to be valid, a guilty plea must be knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered. There is no absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea[.] To withdraw a plea after ____________________________________________

2 The court also suggests Spears waived his issue for failing to request the

notes of testimony from the guilty plea hearing be transcribed to enable this Court’s review. See Trial Court Opinion, 1/8/24, at 3; see Commonwealth v. Midgley, 289 A.3d 1111, 1120 (Pa. Super. 2023) (“The appellant’s failure to [to ensure the certified record is complete] results in waiver of any claim for which a needed item is absent from the certified record.”) (citation omitted). However, we decline to find waiver where Spears’ counsel supplemented the certified record upon realizing his failure to request the transcript earlier.

-4- J-S14026-24

sentencing, a defendant must make a showing of prejudice amounting to “manifest injustice.” A plea rises to the level of manifest injustice when it was entered into involuntarily, unknowingly, or unintelligently.

Commonwealth v. Bedell, 954 A.2d 1209, 1212 (Pa. Super. 2008)

(citations, brackets, and some quotation marks omitted).

Trial courts are required to ask the following questions on the record to

ensure a defendant’s plea is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent:

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

2) Is there a factual basis for the plea?

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