Commonwealth v. Lennon
| Decision Date | 20 March 2013 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. James C. LENNON, Appellant. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Elliott M. Cohen, Philadelphia, for appellant.
John J. Whelan, District Attorney, Media, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Appellant, James C. Lennon, appeals from the order entered in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, which quashed Appellant's appeal from a guilty plea entered in magisterial district court to disorderly conduct. 1 For the following reasons, we reverse and remand.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. Appellant was involved in an altercation with police that led to various criminal charges, including multiple counts of aggravated assault, simple assault, terroristic threats, harassment, recklessly endangering another person (“REAP”), and disorderly conduct. On October 12, 2011, the case proceeded to a non-jury trial in the Court of Common Pleas on three counts of terroristic threats, one count of simple assault, two counts of harassment, and one count of disorderly conduct.2 Midway through the Commonwealth's case-in-chief, Appellant and the Commonwealth came to a negotiated plea agreement. The trial court's opinion provides the following summary:
Counsel's agreement called for [Appellant] to enter guilty pleas to the summary offenses of Disorderly Conduct and Harassment with the Commonwealth to then nolle prosequi the criminal informations filed in this matter (No. 218–11). Seeking to posture this negotiated resolution in a manner that [Appellant] could enjoy the subsequent expungement of his criminal arrest record at bar (No. 218–11), his attorney requested and the Commonwealth agreed that the negotiated summary charges would be lodged as nontraffic citations with the Magisterial District Court in lieu of [Appellant] then proceeding with the summary guilty pleas before this [c]ourt. To effectuate such, the non-jury trial was then continued on the agreement of counsel with the understanding that at the next listing before this [c]ourt the Commonwealth would move to nolle prosequi its criminal prosecution, assuming [Appellant] had in the interim entered his summary guilty pleas before the Magisterial District Court. N.T. 10/12/11, p. 63; N.T. 11/21/11, pp. 3–6. See also Commonwealth's Motion to Vacate Nolle Prosequi, Paragraph 4, and Defense Counsel's Petition for Leave to Withdraw Appearance, Paragraphs 4–6. [Appellant] agreed to the terms of the Commonwealth's offer and the matter was relisted for November 21, 2011, to allow the time necessary to effectuate the terms of the negotiated agreement ( I.e., Police drafting and lodging of the non-traffic citations and [Appellant's] subsequent pleas of guilty before the Magisterial District Court.) N.T. 10/12/11, p. 63. See also Commonwealth's Motion to Vacate Nolle Prosequi, Paragraph 4, and Defense Counsel's Petition for Leave to Withdraw Appearance, Paragraph 5.
Non–Traffic summons were issued against [Appellant] on or about October 13, 2011, and per Citation No. MJ–32237–NT–0001919–2011 [Appellant] was charged with Disorderly Conduct, and under Citation No. MJ–32237–NT–0001920–2011 an allegation of Harassment was lodged against him. See Magisterial District Court Non–Traffic Docket Nos. MJ–32237–NT–0001919–2011 and MJ–32237–NT–0001920–2011—Magisterial District Court 32–2–37. See also Commonwealth's Motion to Vacate Nolle Prosequi, Paragraph 6, and Defense Counsel's Petition for Leave to Withdraw Appearance, Paragraph 6.
At the next trial listing before this [c]ourt on November 21, 2011, matter No. 218–11 was continued by the attorneys' agreement to December 7, 2011, based upon [Appellant's] summary plea date of December 6, 2011, in the Magisterial District Court. In subsequent negotiations among the lawyers, the Commonwealth agreed to modify the summary plea agreement more favorable to [Appellant,] allowing him to plead guilty to the sole summary offense, Disorderly Conduct, with a recommended sentence of time served and a one-hundred ($100.00) dollar fine, still in exchange for the District Attorney's Office, nolle prosequing all criminal informations docketed and then still outstanding at No. 218–11. N.T. 11/21/11, pp. 3–6. See Commonwealth's Motion to Vacate Nolle Prosequi, Paragraph 5.
Pursuant to the final agreement of counsel, on December 6, 2011, [Appellant] entered a negotiated guilty plea before the Magisterial District Court to the summary offense of Disorderly Conduct, under non-traffic Docket No. MJ–32237–NT–0001919–2011 and was sentenced in accord with the lawyers' understanding to time served and a one hundred ($100,00) dollar fine. Also, per the attorneys' subsequent negotiations, the summary offense of Harassment, Docket No. MJ–32237–NT–0001920–2011, was withdrawn at that time (December 6, 2011) by the Commonwealth. See Magisterial District Court Non–Traffic Docket No. M.T–32237–NT–0001920–2011.
Relying on counsel's negotiated agreement and [Appellant's] effectuation of the same given his previous entered Disorderly Conduct plea of guilty, the Commonwealth on December 7, 2011, fulfilled its final commitment of the parties' bargain and moved this [c]ourt to nolle prosequi the pending criminal informations under docket No. 218–11. By Order of that same date (December 7, 2011), the [c]ourt granted the Commonwealth's nolle prosequi request dismissing all charges outstanding against [Appellant] regarding No. 218–11. N.T. 12/7/11, pp. 3–4. See Nolle Pros Application and Order dated December 7, 2011. See also Commonwealth's Motion to Vacate Nolle Prosequi, Paragraph 7, and Defense Counsel's Petition for Leave to Withdraw Appearance, Paragraph 7.
Unbeknownst to the Commonwealth and [Appellant's] trial attorney, ... [Appellant] through current counsel filed with the Court of Common Pleas on or about December 27, 2011, a counseled summary appeal 25 from his Disorderly Conduct guilty plea before the Magisterial District Court. See Commonwealth v. Lennon, summary appeal No. 1375–11.
25. This summary appeal (No. 1375–11) was filed by [current counsel] on [Appellant's] behalf and as a result of this filing [Appellant's] then of-record counsel, ... lodged on or about January 9, 2012, a Petition for Leave to Withdraw Appearance citing “irreconcilable differences having arisen between Petitioner and [Appellant] as a result of the filing of the summary appeal....” [ See ] Defense Counsel's Petition for Leave to Withdraw Appearance, Paragraph 9. At the hearing on February 15, 2012, the [c]ourt granted the Petition for Leave to Withdraw Appearance and resultantly, [plea counsel] was permitted in matter No. 218–11 to withdraw as [Appellant's] attorney. On that same date (February 15, 2012), [current counsel] assumed stewardship of all [Appellant's] interests, including docket No. 218–11.
On finally learning [Appellant] was attempting to unilaterally abrogate the summary plea agreement by which criminal prosecution No. 218–11 was discontinued, the Commonwealth on or about January 5, 2012, lodged a Motion to Vacate Nolle Prosequi salient to matter No. 218–11 and a resulting hearing was set for February 15, 2012, before this [c]ourt. Just prior to this hearing's (February 15, 2012) commencement, defense counsel lodged of record, in open court, a Motion to Terminate Prosecution and Response to the Commonwealth's Motion to Vacate Nolle Prosequi. Without objection, this defense motion was incorporated into the already listed proceeding.
Although by its terms the Commonwealth's Motion to Vacate requested that this [c]ourt set aside its Order of December 7, 2011, granting the District Attorney's Nolle Prosequi Application also of that same date (December 7, 2011), as a form of alternative relief, the Assistant District Attorney orally advanced at the motion hearing that this past Nolle Prosequi Order (December 7, 2011) could be left in place; however, the [c]ourt should as well dismiss [Appellant's] pending summary appeal and thus, enforce the criminal prosecution's negotiated and already implemented summary guilty plea resolution. [Appellant] by his Motion and Response not only opposed the Commonwealth's requested vacating of the Nolle Prosequi Order (December 7, 2011) regarding matter No. 218–11, but as well advanced he should be permitted to continue pursuit of his related summary appeal (No. 1375–11). In short, [Appellant] sought to have this [c]ourt selectively enforce the lawyers' negotiations to assure he enjoyed every benefit of the bargain, while without just or even relevant cause averred otherwise freeing him after the fact from the entirety of his corresponding obligations per this very same plea agreement. N.T. 2/15/12, pp. 3–9.
By Order of February 15, 2012, in No. 218–11, the [c]ourt denied the Commonwealth's Motion to Vacate and [Appellant's] Motion to Terminate Prosecution. Via separate Order entered in the related summary appeal (No. 1375–11) also of that same date (February 15, 2012), the [c]ourt dismissed [Appellant's] summary appeal. In sum, by such Order dismissing [Appellant's] summary appeal and the Order denying both the Commonwealth's Motion to Vacate and [Appellant's] Motion to Terminate Prosecution, the [c]ourt enforced [Appellant's] negotiated summary guilty plea resolution wholly in accord with the terms and/or conditions of counsel's agreement. [Appellant] on March 13, 2012, timely lodged a combined Notice of Appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania from the [c]ourt's Order of February 15, 2012, denying the Commonwealth's Motion to Vacate and [Appellant's] Motion to Terminate Prosecution in No. 218–11 as well as the [c]ourt's Order of the same date (February 15, 2012) dismissing his summary appeal at No. 1375–11. By Orders of March 15, 2012,26 the [c]ourt directed [Appellant's] attorney to file of record a Concise...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Ball
...of that charge before the MDJ and was appealing only the DUS conviction. The trial court disagreed. Relying upon Commonwealth v. Lennon, 64 A.3d 1092 (Pa.Super.2013), the court held that Ball had waived his double jeopardy protections by appealing for a de novo trial.In Lennon, the defendan......
-
Commonwealth v. Ball
...to obtain a trial de novo. See Trial Court Opinion, 1/21/14, at 3–5 (wherein the trial court relied largely upon Commonwealth v. Lennon, 64 A.3d 1092, 1097–1101 (Pa.Super.2013) (where the defendant had entered a negotiated guilty plea to a summary offense before the Magisterial District Cou......