NO. 660 Philadelphia, 1980, Appeal from Judgment of Sentence of the Common Pleas Court of Philadelphia County, Criminal, at Nos. 21, 22, 24, 25, September Term, 1979.
Mitchell Scott Strutin, Philadelphia, for appellant.
Gaele McLaughlin Barthold, Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Hester, McEwen and Cirillo, JJ.
[ 306 Pa. Super. Page 75]
We here review an appeal from the judgment of sentence imposed after appellant pleaded guilty to rape, robbery, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and burglary and was sentenced to terms of imprisonment totaling of from fourteen to thirty years. We affirm.
The statement of facts provided by the Commonwealth at the guilty plea proceeding indicates that the eighteen-year-old appellant entered the home of the fifty-year-old complainant without her consent where, after a struggle, she became the victim of acts of robbery, rape and deviate sexual intercourse by the rectum; as a result, she suffered a cut lip, a head lump, a bruised right eye and hip, a gashed, swollen and bruised left leg and soreness of the neck, uterus and uterus lining which required hospital treatment and has resulted in a lasting eye condition. When the police attempted to arrest appellant within an hour of the attack,
[ 306 Pa. Super. Page 76]
appellant fled the police, was wounded when struck by a shot fired by a pursuing policeman and, shortly after his apprehension and subsequent to the required warnings, told an investigating detective "that he was sorry for what he had done, and wished that he had died."
Appellant subsequently pleaded guilty and was sentenced to terms of a total of from fourteen to thirty years. Twenty-one days after the sentence was imposed, appellant filed a pro se appeal from the judgment of sentence. He had not, however, prior to that time filed any motion to modify sentence or motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
The brief of appellant sets forth the following assertions:
I. Appellant is entitled to a vacation of sentence and a remand to the lower court since he was not informed of the consequences of failing to file a petition to withdraw guilty plea pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure.
II. The lower court erred in accepting appellant's guilty plea which was not knowingly and intelligently entered since he did not fully comprehend the elements of the crime of robbery.
III. The lower court erred in imposing an illegal sentence.
The initial assertion of appellant requires an examination of Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure 321 and 1405(c) which provide:
Rule 321. Challenge to Guilty Plea
(a) A motion challenging the validity of a guilty plea, or the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea shall be in writing and shall be filed with the trial court ...