Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA v. JOSEPH VILLALOZ (08/27/82)

filed: August 27, 1982.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
JOSEPH VILLALOZ, APPELLANT



No. 939 Philadelphia, 1981, Appeal from the Order of April 3, 1981,*fn1 Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County, Criminal Division, No. 454-80.

COUNSEL

Douglas M. Johnson, Assistant Public Defender, Norristown, for appellant.

Ronald T. Williamson, Assistant District Attorney, Norristown, for Commonwealth, appellee.

McEwen, Johnson and Watkins, JJ.

Author: Johnson

[ 303 Pa. Super. Page 519]

Appellant was charged with Criminal Conspiracy,*fn2 Criminal Attempt*fn3 -- Theft of Movable Property, Possessing Instruments of Crime,*fn4 and Burglary.*fn5 Appellant pled guilty to Burglary and Criminal Conspiracy, and the Commonwealth

[ 303 Pa. Super. Page 520]

    nol prossed the other charges. On February 13, 1981, Appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of two and one-half to ten years. Ten days later, Appellant filed a Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea and/or Petition for Reconsideration of Sentence. After a hearing on March 20, 1981, the lower court denied both motions.*fn6 Appellant filed this appeal from the foregoing order on April 14, 1981.

Appellant presents two issues for our consideration. First, did the lower court err when it denied the motion to withdraw the guilty plea? Second, did the lower court impose an unduly harsh sentence?

In discussing his first issue, Appellant presents three reasons why the lower court should have allowed Appellant to withdraw his guilty plea. First, Appellant claims that he believed he would receive a lesser sentence if he pled guilty. After a careful review of the hearing transcript, we are convinced that this argument lacks merit. Appellant's second reason to withdraw the plea is that he did not enter the plea intelligently and voluntarily. Appellant answered every question and initialed every page of a comprehensive written colloquy. In addition, the court questioned Appellant to determine if his plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Thus, Appellant's second argument lacks merit. Finally, Appellant contends that his counsel refused to represent him in a jury trial if Appellant did not pay a fee of $1,000.00. Since Appellant is indigent, he could not pay the fee. This argument is devoid of merit since Appellant testified that his attorney agreed to represent him in a jury trial even if Appellant could not pay $1,000.00. After a thorough review of the record, we are convinced that Appellant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered his guilty plea. The lower court did not err in denying Appellant's motion to withdraw his plea.

As his second issue, Appellant contends that his sentence was unduly harsh. Appellant filed a motion for modification of sentence within the ten-day period designated by

[ 303 Pa. Super. Page 521]

Pa. R. Crim. P. 1410. Appellant did not appeal to our court until the lower court denied the motion for modification of sentence. Thus, Appellant did not file an appeal ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.