post-sentence motion hearing in Pennsylvania

2024When a defendant seeks to withdraw a plea after sentencing, he “must demonstrate prejudice on the order of manifest injustice before withdrawal is justified.” Commonwealth v. Yeomans, 24 A.3d 1044, 1046 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citation omitted). “[A] manifest injustice occurs when a plea is not tendered knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily, and understandingly.” Commonwealth v. Kpou, 153 A.3d 1020, 1023 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation omitted).

2024When a defendant seeks to withdraw a plea after sentencing, he “must demonstrate prejudice on the order of manifest injustice before withdrawal is justified.” Commonwealth v. Yeomans, 24 A.3d 1044, 1046 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citation omitted). “[A] manifest injustice occurs when a plea is not tendered knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily, and understandingly.” Commonwealth v. Kpou, 153 A.3d 1020, 1023 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation omitted).

2023Ralston concedes that his claims “were predominantly litigated during a post-sentence motion hearing held on ____________________________________________ 11 Generally, “we review an order dismissing or denying a PCRA petition as to whether the findings of the PCRA court are supported by the record and are free from legal error.” Commonwealth v. Howard, 285 A.3d 652, 657 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2023“As to legal questions, we apply a de novo standard of review to the PCRA court’s legal conclusions, and this Court may affirm a PCRA court’s order on any legal basis.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). - 22 - J-A06043-23 December 22, 2014[]” and that, “as a result of the record that was previously developed, PCRA counsel offered the post-sentence motion hearing transcript into the record” at the PCRA hearing.

2021See Holt, supra. In his second claim, Shaffer argues that Attorney Decker rendered ineffective assistance at the post-sentence Motion hearing.

2021Therefore, we will not consider this ineffectiveness claim on appeal as it runs afoul of Holmes. - 24 - J-S20027-21 found ineffective for failing to pursue a baseless or meritless claim.” Commonwealth v. Poplawski, 852 A.2d 323, 327 (Pa.Super. 2004).

2021Commonwealth v. McGrath, 255 A.3d 581, 588, n.5 (Pa.Super. 2021) (citing Commonwealth v. Perez, 625 Pa. 601 , 93 A.3d 829, 838 (2014) (the failure to develop an appellate argument with citations to supporting authorities and the record is waived)); Commonwealth v. Donoughe, 243 A.3d 980, 986 (Pa.Super. 2020) (emphasizing that “[i]t is not the role of this Court to formulate an appellant’s arguments for him”). -6- J-A21032-21 Thus, the only claim Appellant properly developed on appeal is his challenge to the trial court’s decision to revoke his bail after the post-sentence motion hearing despit

2021Commonwealth v. McGrath, 255 A.3d 581, 588, n.5 (Pa.Super. 2021) (citing Commonwealth v. Perez, 625 Pa. 601 , 93 A.3d 829, 838 (2014) (the failure to develop an appellate argument with citations to supporting authorities and the record is waived)); Commonwealth v. Donoughe, 243 A.3d 980, 986 (Pa.Super. 2020) (emphasizing that “[i]t is not the role of this Court to formulate an appellant’s arguments for him”). -6- J-A21032-21 Thus, the only claim Appellant properly developed on appeal is his challenge to the trial court’s decision to revoke his bail after the post-sentence motion hearing despit

2021Commonwealth v. McGrath, 255 A.3d 581, 588, n.5 (Pa.Super. 2021) (citing Commonwealth v. Perez, 625 Pa. 601 , 93 A.3d 829, 838 (2014) (the failure to develop an appellate argument with citations to supporting authorities and the record is waived)); Commonwealth v. Donoughe, 243 A.3d 980, 986 (Pa.Super. 2020) (emphasizing that “[i]t is not the role of this Court to formulate an appellant’s arguments for him”). -6- J-A21032-21 Thus, the only claim Appellant properly developed on appeal is his challenge to the trial court’s decision to revoke his bail after the post-sentence motion hearing despit

2021Commonwealth v. McGrath, 255 A.3d 581, 588, n.5 (Pa.Super. 2021) (citing Commonwealth v. Perez, 625 Pa. 601 , 93 A.3d 829, 838 (2014) (the failure to develop an appellate argument with citations to supporting authorities and the record is waived)); Commonwealth v. Donoughe, 243 A.3d 980, 986 (Pa.Super. 2020) (emphasizing that “[i]t is not the role of this Court to formulate an appellant’s arguments for him”). -6- J-A21032-21 Thus, the only claim Appellant properly developed on appeal is his challenge to the trial court’s decision to revoke his bail after the post-sentence motion hearing despit

2020See also Jones, 172 A.3d at 1145 . 8 The Commonwealth’s exhibits were admitted into evidence at the post- sentence motion hearing.

2018See Birchfield, 136 S. Ct. at 2186 .

2017See Hernandez, 755 A.2d at 8 .

2015See Commonwealth v. Monica, 597 A.2d 600, 603 (Pa. 1991) (“[a]s a general rule, failure to raise an issue in a criminal proceeding does not constitute a waiver where the defendant is not represented by counsel in the proceeding.

2015See also Commonwealth v. Warren, 84 A.3d 1092, 1097-1098 (Pa. Super. 2014) (at sentencing, the trial court did not “evince an awareness of the sentencing guidelines or explain [its] decision to deviate therefrom, as was required;” however, “[t]he trial court attempted to ameliorate [its] error in its subsequent Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion by stating additional reasons for the sentence;” this Court held that the trial court’s after-the-fact attempt to rectify its error “does not suffice” because Section 9721(b) “requires that the trial court state its reasons for the sentence in court at the time