Com. v. Washington, P.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Com. v. Washington, P.

DecidedMay 16, 2019

Docket1412 EDA 2018

StatusUnpublished

This text of Com. v. Washington, P. (Com. v. Washington, P.) 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. Washington, P., (Pa. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

J-S06024-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : PARIS WASHINGTON : : Appellant : No. 1412 EDA 2018

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 16, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0005067-2016

BEFORE: BOWES, J., DUBOW, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED MAY 16, 2019

Appellant, Paris Washington, appeals from the Judgment of Sentence of

twenty-five months to sixty months of incarceration followed by twenty-four

months of probation, imposed on April 16, 2018, following a waiver trial at

which Appellant stipulated to facts sufficient to establish two counts each of

Aggravated Assault, Robbery, Conspiracy, and Possessing Instruments of

Crime.1 We affirm.

Appellant stipulated to the following facts:

At around 2 a.m. on February 21, 2016, two roommates, Aaron Guldin and Michael Kramer, invited people that they met at a bar back to their apartment at 148 Sumac Street. At around 3:30 a.m., Mr. Guldin found two of the women in the group rifling through his dresser drawer. Mr. Guldin asked the group to leave after realizing that $300 in cash and $200 in Visa gift cards were missing from the drawer. Mr. Kramer heard a commotion and left his bedroom to join Mr. Guldin. Everyone left the apartment, ____________________________________________

1 See 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2702(a)(1), 3701(a)(1)(iv), 903(a), 907(a), respectively. J-S06024-19

except for [Appellant], [co-conspirator] Shamari Williams, and an unknown white male. Mr. Williams pointed a silver revolver at Mr. Guldin and Mr. Kramer and demanded everything they had. [Appellant] and the white male punched Mr. Kramer several times. The white male then struck Mr. Kramer with a piece of the wooden railing in the hallway steps. At some point, the Complainants were able to escape and contact police, while [the assailants] searched [the] apartment. Aside from the cash and gift cards, both Complainants’ cell phones were taken.

On the same day of the robbery, [police] recovered five Budweiser bottles from the Complainants’ apartment. One of the fingerprints on the bottles matched [Appellant]. Both Complainants later identified [Appellant] in photo arrays.

Trial Ct. Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Op., filed 9/12/18, at 1-2; see also N.T., 4/16/18,

at 32-35.

On the day scheduled for trial, prior to the selection of a jury, Appellant’s

counsel conducted a colloquy with Appellant, setting forth the terms of a plea

agreement including a negotiated sentence offered by the Commonwealth.

N.T. at 8-10. Initially, Appellant indicated that he had not decided whether to

accept the terms. Id. at 10. The court noted that trial would commence on

that day and, therefore, the time had come for Appellant to make a decision:

accept the offer or proceed to a jury trial. Id. at 11-12.

Appellant decided to accept the offer. Id. at 12. However, the court

declined to accept Appellant’s plea, noting his apparent reluctance. Id. at 16.

Rather, the court suggested it would offer Appellant the opportunity to choose

between a waiver trial, with Appellant stipulating to facts in exchange for the

sentence offered by the Commonwealth, and a jury trial. Id. at 16-17.

Following further consultation with counsel, as well as written and oral

-2- J-S06024-19

colloquies, the court determined that Appellant knowingly and voluntarily

waived his right to a jury trial. Id. at 18-32.

Following the entry of stipulations on the record, the court found

Appellant guilty and proceeded directly to sentencing. The court sentenced

Appellant as indicated above and in accordance with the agreement reached

with the Commonwealth. Id. at 43-44; Sentencing Order, 4/16/18.

Appellant timely appealed and filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)

Statement. The court issued a responsive opinion.

Appellant raises the following issue on appeal:

[Whether] the lower court err[ed] in accepting [Appellant’s] waiver of his right to a jury trial and his stipulation to the Commonwealth’s evidence in light of his obvious reluctance to do so[.]

Appellant’s Br. at 3.2

“The constitutional right to trial by jury, as with other constitutional

rights, will not lightly be deemed to have been waived. In fact, courts indulge

every reasonable presumption against waiver of such fundamental

____________________________________________

2 Appellant has presented a single argument focused on the validity of his waiver. See Appellant’s Br. at 9-10. He has not developed a separate argument addressing his stipulation. To the extent Appellant purports to raise his stipulation as a distinct issue, we deem it waived. Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a); see, e.g., Commonwealth v. B.D.G., 959 A.2d 362, 371–72 (Pa. Super. 2008) (“When an appellant fails to develop his issue in an argument and fails to cite any legal authority, the issue is waived.”). We note further that Appellant preserved no objection to the Commonwealth’s recitation of the facts. See N.T. at 35 (Appellant stipulating to the facts presented).

-3- J-S06024-19

constitutional rights.” Commonwealth v. Stokes, 299 A.2d 272, 276 (Pa.

1973).

Nevertheless, a criminal defendant may waive his right to a jury trial

and proceed to trial before a judge, provided his waiver is knowing and

voluntary. Commonwealth v. Houck, 948 A.2d 780, 787 (Pa. 2008);

Pa.R.Crim.P. 620. The defendant “must be aware of the essential ingredients

inherent to a jury trial,” which are “1) that the jury be chosen from members

of the community (i.e., a jury of one's peers), 2) that the accused be allowed

to participate in the selection of the jury panel, and 3) that the verdict be

unanimous.” Houck, 948 A.2d at 787. On appeal, we review the totality of

the circumstances surrounding a defendant’s waiver to determine whether the

waiver was voluntary. Commonwealth v. Foreman, 797 A.2d 1005, 1015

(Pa. Super. 2002).

Here, Appellant contends the court erred in accepting his waiver of his

right to a jury trial. Appellant’s Br. at 8. According to Appellant, the record

reveals that he remained uncertain how to proceed. Id. at 9. This

uncertainty, Appellant concludes, cannot overcome the presumption against

finding a knowing and intelligent waiver of the constitutional right to trial by

jury. Id. at 9-10 (citing in support Stokes, supra at 276).

In Stokes, the trial court observed the defendant “to be rather

immature” and, therefore, directed counsel to fully explain the defendant’s

right to a jury trial in the presence of the defendant’s father. Stokes, supra

at 274. Following repeated explanations, counsel reported that the defendant

-4- J-S06024-19

had accepted his recommendation to proceed with a waiver trial, but in

response to questioning from the prosecutor, the defendant stated his

preference to proceed before a jury. Id. at 275. Upon further questioning,

the defendant eventually agreed to proceed with a waiver trial, and the court

accepted his waiver. Id. at 276.

Upon review, our Supreme Court found the record “inadequate to show

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