Commonwealth v. Mach Transp.

• Docket Number: 1003 EDA 2022,No. 1003 EDA 2022
• Decision Date: 13 October 2023
• Citation: Commonwealth v. Mach Transp., 305 A.3d 22 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023)
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. MACH TRANSPORT, LLC, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

305 A.3d 22

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania

v.MACH TRANSPORT, LLC, Appellant

No. 1003 EDA 2022

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted March 27, 2023

Filed October 13, 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 11, 2022, In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, Criminal Division, at No: CP-09-SA-0000504-2021, Charissa J. Liller, J.

Marc S. Stolee, Bristol, Appellant.

Matthew D. Weintraub, District Attorney, Doylestown, for Commonwealth, appellee.

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., LAZARUS, J., and STABILE, J.

OPINION BY STABILE, J.:

Appellant, Mach Transport, LLC, was issued a traffic summons for driving an unregistered vehicle, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1301. A magisterial district justice found Appellant guilty and fined Appellant $4,652.00, and Appellant timely appealed to the court of common pleas. On the day of trial, Appellant appeared in court through counsel. Counsel and the Commonwealth agreed that Appellant would pay a reduced fine. The trial court accepted the agreement, entered a disposition of guilty and imposed the reduced fine.

Appellant now appeals to this Court and asks us to vacate its guilty plea because it was unknowing, unintelligent, and involuntary. Appellant asserts that (1) its attorney entered the guilty plea by mistake by relying on a registration for another vehicle, and (2) the registration for the correct vehicle demonstrates that it was properly registered on the date of the traffic stop. For the reasons that follow, we remand for further proceedings concerning whether Appellant is entitled to vacatur of its guilty plea.

Appellant, a limited liability corporation, is a Kentucky trucking company. On January 22, 2021, a police officer conducted a traffic stop on a tractor trailer owned by Appellant. The operator of the vehicle could not provide a valid registration for the vehicle, so the officer issued a citation for driving an unregistered vehicle. On October 21, 2021, a magisterial district justice found Appellant guilty under Section 1301 and imposed a fine of $4,652.00. Appellant appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County for a trial de novo.

On the date of trial, March 11, 2022, counsel for Appellant appeared as the lone representative on Appellant’s behalf. The Commonwealth informed the court, "This is an agreement … where the Commonwealth agrees to reduce the fine to the amount of $2,326.00." N.T., 3/11/22, at 2. Counsel for Appellant advised that Appellant "[was] not present, [but] I have the authority to go ahead and enter this [agreement] on [Appellant’s] behalf." Id. The Commonwealth stated that it had no objection to counsel negotiating the agreement on Appellant’s behalf. Id. The court asked whether counsel "discussed with [Appellant] the fact that [counsel] was going to negotiate in [an] attempt to get this [agreement]?" Id. at 3. Counsel answered, "Yes." Id. The court asked, "And your client was agreeable to that?" Id. Counsel answered, "Yes." Id. The court stated, "Based on that I will grant the resolution that has been worked out between the Commonwealth and [Appellant]." Id. On the disposition sheet, the court checked the box marked "guilty" as well as the boxes marked "agreement," "pay costs," "pay fines" and "amended." Miscellaneous Criminal Court and Information Sheet, 3/11/22. The court also wrote, "Reduce fine to $2,326.00 under 60-day suspension." Id.

On April 11, 2022, Appellant filed a notice of appeal to this Court. Subsequently, Appellant filed a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal in which it raised one issue: "Did the trial court err in accepting Appellant’s guilty plea as it was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary since Appellant provided a current vehicle registration but it was not presented during plea negotiations?" The trial court filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925 opinion recommending that this Court affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence. The court stated, "[A]t the March 11, 2022 hearing, Appellant never entered into a guilty plea nor was Appellant’s case dismissed; rather this Court merely granted the Resolution stipulated to between Appellant and the Commonwealth." Opinion, 6/23/22, at 3.

Appellant presents a single issue in this appeal: "Did the Trial Court err in accepting Appellant’s guilty pleas [sic] as it was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary since Appellant provided a current vehicle registration but it was not presented during plea negotiations?" Appellant’s Brief at 4.

[1] Appellant asks this Court to vacate its guilty plea on the ground that Appellant’s counsel entered the plea by mistake. In an affidavit appended to Appellant’s brief, counsel averred that he had the correct registration in his possession on the date of the common pleas hearing but mistakenly entered the guilty plea by using a registration for another vehicle.¹ The correct registration demonstrates that the vehicle stopped by the police was properly registered in Kentucky on the date of the stop. Appellant’s brief concludes, "Appellant in no way made a knowing, intelligent and voluntary agreement to plead guilty to driving an unregistered vehicle [because] the vehicle was legally registered." Appellant’s Brief at 10.

The Commonwealth’s brief does not address whether Appellant entered a guilty plea. Instead, the Commonwealth states that "in the interests of justice, as [Appellant] appears to have facially set forth a claim of [its] innocence based on after-discovered evidence, the Commonwealth has no objection to a remand of this matter to the trial court" for Appellant to raise a claim of after-discovered evidence. Commonwealth’s Brief at 4.

We begin by addressing Appellant’s argument that the court of common pleas erred in declining to vacate its guilty plea. Three questions require consideration: (1) whether the court had the authority to accept a guilty plea in an appeal from a summary criminal conviction from a magisterial district justice court, (2) whether the record demonstrates that Appellant entered a guilty plea, and (3) whether the court should consider Appellant’s request to withdraw its guilty plea.

[2] We answer the first question in the affirmative. In summary cases, the Rules expressly permit guilty pleas in a magisterial district justice court, see Pa. R.Crim.P. 454(A-B), but the Rules are conspicuously silent as to whether guilty pleas are permissible in common pleas court in appeals from a magisterial district justice court. The only procedures that the Rules expressly authorize in appeals are (1) dismissal of the appeal if the defendant fails to appear on the date of trial, Pa. R.Crim.P. 462(D); (2) withdrawal of the appeal by the defendant, Pa.R.Crim.P. 462(E); or (3) trial de novo followed immediately by the verdict and sentencing (if necessary), Pa.R.Crim.P. 462(A), (F). The Comment to Rule 462 states that procedures in summary appeals are "compara- ble" to the summary trial case procedures in Rule 454 (procedures before magisterial district justices). The term "comparable" means that the procedures on appeal are similar, but not identical, to procedures in a magisterial district justice court. See Merriam-Webster.com (defining "comparable" as "similar, like"). Thus, the Comment leaves open whether guilty pleas are available in appeals from a magisterial district justice court.

[3] Although the Rules are silent, the Judiciary Code establishes that common pleas courts have the authority to accept guilty pleas in appeals of summary criminal cases from a magisterial district justice court. The Code provides in relevant part that "[e]very judge of a court of common pleas shall have all the powers of a … magisterial district judge of the minor judiciary." 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 912. Since Pa. R.Crim.P. 454 authorizes magisterial district justices to accept guilty pleas in summary criminal cases, Section 912 extends the same authority to common pleas judges in appeals from a magisterial district justice court.²

[4–6] The next question is whether Appellant actually entered a guilty plea in common pleas court. The court asserts that "Appellant never entered into a guilty plea … rather this Court merely granted the Resolution stipulated to between Appellant and the Commonwealth." Pa.R.A.P. 1925 Opinion, 6/23/22, at 3. In our view, however, the "resolution" was equivalent to a negotiated guilty plea. A guilty plea is "an admission of all the elements of a formal criminal charge." Commonwealth v. Thompson, 466 Pa. 15, 351 A.2d 280, 282 (1976). In a negotiated guilty plea, the defendant admits all elements of the charge in exchange for some concession by the Commonwealth, e.g., a reduced sentence. Comment, Pa.R.Crim.P. 590. Although the parties did not expressly state that Appellant was "pleading guilty," they informed the court that Appellant agreed to pay a reduced fine of $2,326.00. Counsel for Appellant further advised that Appellant consented to counsel negotiating this agreement with the Commonwealth.³ These facts reflect a negotiated plea in which Appellant admitted guilt for driving an unregistered vehicle in return for a reduced fine.

[7] The third and final question is whether the court should consider Appellant’s request to withdraw its guilty plea.

Upon review, we remand this ease with the directive that the trial court conduct a hearing on this issue.

[8–12] The present case involves a post-sentence attempt to withdraw a guilty plea, so the attempt must satisfy a stricter standard than a pre-sentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea. In a pre-sentence motion, the defendant must offer a claim of innocence that is "at least plausible to demonstrate, in and of itself, a fair and just reason for … withdrawal of a plea." Commonwealth v. Carrasquillo, 631 Pa. 692, 115 A.3d 1284, 1292 (2015). In contrast, to prevail on a post-sentence request to withdraw a plea, "[a] defendant must demonstrate that manifest injustice would result if the court were to deny his post-sentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea. Manifest injustice may be...