Originally Syndicated on May 12, 2023 @ 9:43 am
The following information concerns the claims made against Allen Spearman about sexual crime:
In the Greater Philadelphia region, Allen Spearman claims to be an entrepreneur and business owner. Among the businesses he owns and runs are Spearman Properties, which was formally founded in 2004, All HVAC and Electrical, LLC, which was founded in 2017, and other businesses.
Case history of Allen Spearman
Allen Spearman appeals the decision made on February 24, 2015, which rejected his PCRA complaint. We confirm after careful review.
In a previous memorandum, this court provided the following historical overview of the case and upheld the sentencing judgment of Allen Spearman on direct appeal:
Allen Spearman was detained for sexual offenses against his natural daughter, B.S. On May 15, 2009, the Appellant, who was represented by counsel.
Allen Spearman went forward with a bench trial at which B.S., who was sixteen at the time, gave voluminous testimony on direct examination about the years of sexual assault that her father, Allen had inflicted against her.
B.S. specifically stated in-depth how the Appellant frequently raped her and then paid her afterward.
Trial counsel asked for a brief break after the direct questioning of B.S., and Allen then declared he was going to enter a guilty plea.
The certified docket record reads, “Guilty Plea-Non-Negotiated,” and the Court Crier announced, “Judge, this will continue to be an open plea.”
Allen then provided an extended guilty plea colloquy to the trial court, and the trial court held a verbal guilty plea colloquy.
Following Allen’s oral admission of guilt to the charges listed above, the trial court orally directed a presentence investigation as well as Megan’s law evaluation. During the guilty plea colloquy, the trial court also mentioned, among other things, that Allen might file an appeal if the investigation court imposed an improper sentence.
Although the trial court retained the “stay away order in effect,” Allen continued to be released on bail while awaiting punishment.
A presentence investigation summary was submitted on October 2, 2009, and on October 9, 2009, the appellant who was now represented by new counsel filed a motion to cancel his guilty plea.
(1) Allen claimed in the application that his guilty plea was the “product of pressure and was consequently not a knowing, intelligent, and voluntarily surrender of his trial rights;”
(2) He thinks he has a strong defense against the accusations made against him and that he is “innocent of any allegations in this matter;” and
(3) if Allen is allowed to retract his guilty plea, the Commonwealth won’t suffer significantly.
The trial court refused Allen’s request for a presentence hearing after a brief hearing on the grounds that, among other things. The Commonwealth would suffer a significant loss if the appellant withdrew his guilty plea.
A petition for rehearing was submitted by the Appellant on January 21st, 2010, and it was rejected on April 23rd after an evidentiary hearing.
The trial court handed down penalties on the same day that ranged from 5 to 10 years in jail for serious indecent assault and 2 to 4 years for illegal limitation, to be served consecutively for a total of 7 to 14 years in prison.
For the other charges, no additional punishment was issued. Additionally, Allen was deemed to be an “SVP” for the purposes of Megan’s Law.
Following the denial of post-sentence motions, the Supreme Court affirmed the sentence decision on October 18, 2011.
We came to the conclusion that the court of appeals wasn’t abusing its discretion when it denied the appellant’s motion to drop his guilty plea before sentencing because the trial court believed that Allen Spearman’s claim of innocence was not genuine but rather a ploy to influence and stop the legal process.
We further concurred that the Commonwealth would have suffered significantly if the appellant had withdrawn his guilty plea prior to sentencing in the case where the young victim had already appeared and she and her mother had relocated to Florida.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected an appeal petition submitted by Allen on April 4, 2012. On March 12, 2013, a timely, advised PCRA petition was submitted.
The PCRA court issued an order denying Allen relief on February 24, 2015, after a hearing on evidence that took place on January 23, 2015.
The request for notice of appeal was submitted on time, on March 23, 2015. Allen was given until March 26, 2015, to submit a succinct description of the faults raised in the appeal.
On April 15, 2015, Allen timely complied, and on June 12, 2015, the PCRA court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion.
The Claims & Consequences of the Case of Allen Spearman
In his opening argument, Allen Spearman argued that Alleyne v. United States violated his 5- to 10-year statutory minimum sentence for extreme sexual assault. The statutory minimum sentence for Allen was five years.
We now discuss the second and third claims of ineffective legal representation presented by Allen.
It is obvious that an accused criminal has a right to knowledgeable legal representation both throughout the plea negotiation process and at trial.
However, “allegations of failure related to with the admission of a plea of guilty will only serve as a ground for relief if the failure to work led the defendant to make a guilty plea involuntarily or without knowledge.
We now discuss the second and third claims of ineffective legal representation made by Allen.
According to the PCRA, Allen must prove,
(1) that the fundamental claim has some substance in order to succeed on a claim alleging ineffective assistance of counsel
(2) the lawyer’s actions were ill-advised and intended to serve his client’s interests.
(3) He was disadvantaged by counsel’s inefficiency, i.e., there is a plausible chance that the result of the action would be significantly different but for the alleged conduct or omission.
In his third argument on appeal, the appellant contends that Attorney Rossman, who represented him at sentencing, and Attorney Kramer, who represented him at trial, both failed to enforce the conditions of the agreed-upon plea agreement.
As was said above, the appellant contends that he believed a five-year prison term was what would be imposed upon him. According to the appellant, that wasn’t a forthright plea with regard to punishment. The evidence refutes this claim made by the appellant.
Additionally, according to the sentencing record, Attorney Rossman provided a consultant report on behalf of the appellant, concluding that Allen failed to satisfy the requirements for SVP status as stated in the statute.
Conclusion
You can have a look at the screenshot of Allen Spearman’s case footnotes that were previously mentioned to see how closely he has been involved in a number of cases.
*Appellant is Allen Spearman.
