J. S16040/16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
JORGE ALDEA, :
:
Appellant : No. 1443 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 13, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0004660-2012
CP-51-CR-0004700-2012
BEFORE: OTT, J., DUBOW, J., and JENKINS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED MARCH 04, 2016
Appellant, Jorge Aldea, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County following his
guilty plea to two counts of first-degree murder, one count of conspiracy,
and two counts of firearms not to be carried without a license.1 Appellant’s
counsel filed a Petition to Withdraw as Counsel and a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Commonwealth v.
Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009). We affirm the judgment of sentence
and grant the petition to withdraw.
The relevant factual and procedural history is as follows. On
November 25, 2011, Louis Chevere was shot and killed on West
1
18 P.S. § 2502(a); 18 P.S. 903 § (c); 18 P.S. § 6106(a)(1) respectively.
J. S16040/16
Westmoreland Street in Philadelphia. Two eyewitnesses identified Appellant
as the shooter from a photo array.
Appellant admitted to his girlfriend, Eliana Vasquez, that he had killed
Chevere, and instructed her to go to police to provide them with
misinformation as to who had committed the murder, and to find out who
the potential witnesses were. Vazquez obtained several names of potential
witnesses, including one Rosemary Fernandez-Rivera. Vazquez, Appellant,
and Appellant’s cousin, Raymond Soto, had several conversations concerning
the elimination of potential eyewitnesses. Soto obtained a handgun, and he
and Appellant recruited Shawn Poindexter to kill Fernandez-Rivera and make
it look like a robbery. Trial Ct. Op., 6/24/15, at 3-5, citing N.T.
On January 23, 2012, Poindexter shot and killed Fernandez-Rivera
while she was at work in a store on North Mutter Street in Philadelphia.
Police determined from casings at the scene that the murder weapon had
been a nine-millimeter handgun. Id. at 4.
On February 3, 2012, Appellant, Soto, Poindexter, and Vazquez were
each arrested and charged with the above crimes. Appellant, represented by
court-appointed counsel, decided to plead guilty.
Prior to the recitation of facts at the plea hearing, Appellant completed
and signed two written guilty plea colloquies. The trial court conducted an
extensive oral colloquy in accordance with Pa.R.Crim.P. 590. The court
emphasized “the potential for the jury to impose the death penalty and the
-2-
J. S16040/16
consequences of entering into a guilty plea including Appellant’s limited
appellate rights.” Trial Ct. Op., 06/24/15, at 7. Appellant informed the
court that he alone decided to enter into a plea; no one had threatened him
in order to get him to plead guilty. Id. Appellant admitted that he had
killed Chevere, that he conspired to kill Fernandez-Rivera, and that on both
occasions he had carried firearms without a license. The court accepted
Appellant’s pleas as knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. At no point did
Appellant object during the plea colloquy. The trial court sentenced
Appellant to, inter alia, two consecutive terms of life imprisonment without
the possibility of parole for the murder convictions. At no point did Appellant
file a post-trial motion to withdraw his pleas.
On May 7, 2015, Appellant filed a notice of appeal. The trial court
ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. Appellant’s court-
appointed counsel filed a timely statement indicating he intended to file an
Anders brief in lieu of a Rule 1925(b) statement pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.
1925(c)(4), asserting that there were no meritorious issues to raise on
appeal. On September 15, 2015, counsel filed a brief and an application to
withdraw as counsel pursuant to Anders, and Santiago, supra.
In his Anders brief, counsel raised one issue: whether there is any
reason that Appellant should not be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea
and proceed to trial. Anders Brief at 3.
-3-
J. S16040/16
Before we address the merits of this appeal, we must determine
whether counsel has followed the procedures for filing a brief and petition to
withdraw pursuant to Anders and its progeny. Commonwealth v.
Goodwin, 928 A.2d 287, 290 (Pa. Super. 2007) (en banc). Counsel who
wishes to withdraw must file a petition to withdraw explaining that he or she
made a conscientious examination of the record and determined that an
appeal would be frivolous. Commonwealth v. Wright, 846 A.2d 730, 736
(Pa. Super. 2004). Also, counsel must provide a copy of the Anders brief to
the appellant and inform him of his right to proceed pro se, retain different
counsel, or assert issues not included in the Anders brief.
The substance of the Anders brief must “(1) provide a summary of the
procedural history and facts, with citations to the record; (2) refer to
anything in the record that counsel believes arguably supports the appeal;
(3) set forth counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) state
counsel’s reasons for concluding that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel should
articulate the relevant facts of record, controlling case law, and/or statutes
on point that led to the conclusion that the appeal is frivolous.” Santiago,
978 A.2d at 361.
Counsel in the instant case has complied with the procedural and
substantive requirements of Anders and Santiago.
When a defense attorney files an Anders brief, the appellate court
must conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether
-4-
J. S16040/16
there are any meritorious issues counsel could have raised. Santiago, 978
A.2d at 355 n.5. We have reviewed the record here and conclude that there
are no meritorious issues.
With respect to Appellant’s argument that he should be permitted to
withdraw his guilty plea and proceed to trial, our review indicates that
Appellant did not object to the voluntariness of his plea during the plea
colloquy, nor did Appellant file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea within
ten days of sentencing. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(A)(1), (B)(1)(a)(i). Pursuant
to well-settled case law, this failure results in waiver. Commonwealth v.
Lincoln, 72 A.3d 606, 609-10 (Pa. Super. 2013). We, thus, decline to
review Appellant’s challenge to the validity of his plea.
Our review of the record indicates that there are no meritorious issues
counsel could have raised. We, thus, affirm the judgment of sentence and
grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Counsel’s petition to withdraw
granted. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/4/2016
-5-
Com. v. Aldea, J.
Combined Opinion