Commonwealth v. Hargrove

1

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RAYMOND HARGROVE Appellant

No. 900 EDA 2023

No. J-S09032-24

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

May 30, 2024

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 2, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0007106-2018

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., NICHOLS, J., and BECK, J.

MEMORANDUM

BECK J.

Raymond Hargrove ("Hargrove") appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed by the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas following his plea of nolo contendere to possession of a firearm prohibited.^[1] Hargrove's counsel, Attorney William A. Love ("Counsel"), seeks to withdraw from representation pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349, 361 (Pa. 2009). Upon review, we grant Counsel's petition to withdraw and affirm Hargrove's judgment of sentence.

On July 30, 2018, Philadelphia police officers received a flash that a black male wearing a red shirt and black pants had pulled a gun on someone on North 20th Street. Upon responding to the scene, officers encountered Hargrove, who matched the description, near the 2500 block of 20th Street. They approached Hargrove and noticed a large bulge in his front pants pocket. Subsequently, the officers observed the handle of a firearm sticking out of his front pants pocket. The officers recovered the firearm, which was inoperable, and arrested Hargrove. Thereafter, the Commonwealth charged him with possession of a firearm prohibited, firearms not to be carried without a license, carrying firearms on a public street in Philadelphia, simple assault, recklessly endangering another person, and terroristic threats. All charges were bound over for trial and Hargrove remained in county prison awaiting trial.

In March 2019, Hargrove, through his counsel, Attorney Eileen Hurley, filed an omnibus pretrial motion to suppress evidence. Subsequently, Hargrove filed several motions pro se, challenging the trial court's jurisdiction, asserting violations of his right to a speedy trial pursuant to the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions and Pa.R.Crim.P. 600, and expressing dissatisfaction with Attorney Hurley.

The trial court scheduled a jury trial for August 29, 2022. At the outset, the trial court asked Hargrove whether he wished to select a jury or to accept a plea offer from the Commonwealth. Attorney Hurley reiterated Hargrove's options: (1) proceed to a jury trial; (2) waive his right to a jury and proceed to a non-jury trial; (3) accept the Commonwealth's offer to plead guilty in exchange for a sentence of four to eight years of incarceration, with credit for the four years that he already served; (4) plead guilty to possession of a firearm prohibited with the sentence to be determined by the trial court; or (5) plead nolo contendere to possession of a firearm prohibited with the sentence to be determined by the trial court. See N.T., 8/26/2022, at 5-6.

Attorney Hurley explained that if Hargrove pleaded nolo contendere, he would not admit guilt but would not contest the Commonwealth's case. Id. Hargrove indicated that he did not wish to accept the Commonwealth's offer for a negotiated sentence, even with the possibility of immediate release on parole, because he would have to be transferred to the state penitentiary. See id. at 7. If Hargrove entered an open plea, the trial court explained, it would order him to undergo a mental health examination, listen to his allocution at the sentencing hearing, and consider mitigating factors such as his health. See id. at 9-13.

Hargrove stated his desire to enter a nolo contendere plea to possession of a firearm prohibited. Id. at 13. The trial court then conducted an on-the-record colloquy. In response to the trial court's questions, Hargrove indicated: he was fifty-seven years old; he had left school in the seventh grade; he had difficulty reading, writing, and understanding English but he "manage[d]"; the prison was giving him Buspar, which he had taken along with Prozac prior to entering prison; and that the Buspar "somewhat" helped his anxiety, hypertension, and bipolar disorder. Id. at 13-15. The trial court informed Hargrove that by pleading nolo contendere, he was giving up his right to a trial, and that the trial court would likely decide that the Commonwealth's statement of facts established the elements of the crime. Id. at 15-16. Hargrove said that he understood, and asked the trial court if it would adjudicate the matter with "clean hands" and "in good faith." Id. The trial court responded that it would. The trial court reminded Hargrove that the jury was waiting next door to be picked for his trial, but that if he pleaded nolo contendere, he would give up his jury trial rights and almost all appellate rights. Id. at 18-20. The trial court and Attorney Hurley explained that he could ask the court to reconsider his sentence or that he may challenge the sentence on appeal. Id. at 20-21. The trial court informed Hargrove that he could not "get more than 10 to 20," and that the court would not consider anything above four to eight years unless the Commonwealth provided additional information "because that's what [the Commonwealth] has said the case is worth" by offering that amount in a plea. Id. at 21-22.

Hargrove inquired about the status of the omnibus motion to suppress evidence. Id. at 24. The trial court explained that by entering a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, he would be giving up the right to "litigate anything pretrial" and the only issues that he could appeal was "whether [his] decision was voluntary and whether [the court] [gave him] a bad sentence from [his] perspective." Id. at 24-25.

Hargrove answered "no" when asked if anyone was forcing him to enter a plea. Id. at 25. When the court asked him if anyone promised him anything (other than what the court promised him), Hargrove responded, "[s]he suggested it," referring to Attorney Hurley. Id. The trial court stated that was Attorney Hurley's job, but the decision was solely his to make. Id. Hargrove replied, "Yeah. I made it already." Id.

Hargrove then entered an open nolo contendere plea to possession of a firearm prohibited in exchange for the Commonwealth's nolle prosequi of the remaining charges. The trial court accepted the plea, finding that the Commonwealth's statement of facts were sufficient to establish the elements of the crime. Id. at 28-29.^[2]

The trial court ordered a pre-sentence investigation report and mental health evaluation, scheduled the sentencing hearing, and told Hargrove that he should arrange for family to be present in case the court decided to sentence him to time served. Id. at 29-31. Ultimately, however, Hargrove refused to cooperate with the pre-sentence investigation and the mental health evaluation despite several opportunities for him to comply. Eventually, the pre-sentence investigator filed a pre-sentence investigation report without the benefit of Hargrove's participation.

In November 2022, Hargrove filed a pro se motion seeking to withdraw his plea "because of bad faith, unclean hands, and dishonor," claiming that "there is no criminal law in America," and there was "obstruction of justice violating his due process rights." Pro Se Motion to Withdraw, 11/2/2022, at Introductory Paragraph. Specifically, he asserted the following grounds for his request to withdraw his plea: (1) dissatisfaction with Attorney Hurley because she failed to raise his Rule 600 and suppression motions and because "a [b]ar[-l]icensed attorney is a conflict of interest," id. ¶¶ 3-7; (2) entry of an involuntary and unintelligent plea because he was under the influence of a mental health medication prescribed by the jail when he entered his plea and the trial court coerced him into accepting the plea, id. ¶¶ 9-10, 12; (3) an unspecified but "clear assertion of innocence," id. ¶ 15; and (4) suppression of the firearm was warranted based upon the police officers' false and uncorroborated allegations that the officers took the inoperable firearm from his person, id. at ¶¶ 10-11.

Meanwhile, the trial court twice continued the sentencing hearing because Hargrove refused to comply with a Covid testing policy required for transport from the prison to the courthouse. The trial court arranged for the hearing to occur via video, but Hargrove refused to leave his cell to participate, forcing a third continuance.

On March 2, 2023, Attorney Hurley was present at the sentencing hearing, but Hargrove once again refused to leave his cell to participate via video.^[3] At the trial court's request, Attorney Hurley detailed Hargrove's longstanding failure to cooperate with her assistance and with the legal process. See id. at 10-16. In addition to his refusal to cooperate or recognize the authority of the trial court based upon his membership in the Moor Nation in December 2019, Hargrove "refused to come out" for several court listings despite being transported to the court. Id. at 12. Hargrove largely rebuked Attorney Hurley's attempts to visit him in jail. Historically, he refused to wear a mask in accordance with the prison's mask mandate for visits. Since he entered his plea, he thrice refused to meet with her. Id. at 14-15. Normally, Attorney Hurley would petition to withdraw, but she did not "because it would just be the same thing with somebody else." Id. at 16. Attorney Hurley noted that she and past trial judges in the case have been concerned about "mental health issues" for Hargrove, but that Hargrove "just refuses to cooperate" with any attempt to address or evaluate his mental health. Id. at 22. She mentioned that Hargrove...