Challenge to Guilty Plea Fails

When an Insurance Fraudster Admits Guilt He Must Serve the Time

Post 5036

Post Conviction Review Results in Affirmation of Sentence

Lewis R. Brown, appealed from the December 20, 2023 order entered in the Delaware County, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas denying his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-46, as meritless.

In Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania v. Lewis R. Brown, No. 197 EDA 2024, No. J-S02022-25, Superior Court of Pennsylvania (March 24, 2025) reviewed his appeal after his request for post sentence motion to reconsider his sentence was denied.

FACTS

On June 21, 2022, Appellant entered an open guilty plea to Insurance Fraud, Theft by Deception, Criminal Use of a Communication Facility, and Conspiracy to Commit Insurance Fraud. In pleading guilty, Appellant admitted that he called his insurance company regarding a fraudulent claim from Delaware County and received payment for the fraudulent claim at his residence in Delaware County.

On August 15, 2022, the trial court sentenced Appellant to a term of 18 to 48 months of incarceration, a concurrent term of 6 years of probation, and restitution.

Plea counsel filed a post-sentence motion for reconsideration of sentence, which the trial court granted. The court resentenced Appellant to a term of 15 to 36 months of incarceration, a concurrent term of 6 years of probation, and restitution.

On October 11, 2022, Brown obtained new counsel who filed a motion for reconsideration of sentence, which the trial court denied.  Then, Appellant pro se filed the instant PCRA petition. The PCRA court appointed counsel who, on March 14, 2023, filed an amended petition.

In the amended petition, Appellant came up with an amazing assertion that Philadelphia County was the proper jurisdiction for this matter because the conduct underlying the charges against him "occurred via telephone communication in the City of Philadelphia" and no criminal behavior occurred in Delaware County so his plea of guilty should be rescinded.

THE PCRA COURT

On September 19, 2023, the PCRA court held a hearing on the petition, permitting Brown to speak. Brown stated that he believed Delaware County lacked jurisdiction because all criminal conduct occurred in Philadelphia County.

ISSUES

Appellant's counsel raised the following issues:

Did the [PCRA] court abuse its discretion by denying [] Appellant's [PCRA] petition after a hearing where he presented evidence that jurisdiction and/or venue was improper in Delaware County, Pennsylvania, where all the criminal conduct occurred in Philadelphia County?
Was plea counsel ineffective for failing to challenge venue and/or jurisdiction where all criminal conduct occurred in Philadelphia County?

To support the motion Counsel is required to submit a "no merit" brief (1) detailing the nature and extent of her review; (2) listing each issue the petitioner wishes to have raised on review; and (3) explaining why the petitioner's issues are meritless. The Court then conducts its own independent review of the record to determine if the petition is meritless.

ANALYSIS

An appellate court must give great deference to the findings of the PCRA court if the record contains any support for those findings. The PCRA court's credibility determinations are binding on the appellate court.

A petitioner must establish that the issues raised in the PCRA petition have not been previously litigated or waived, and that the failure to litigate the issue prior to or during trial, during unitary review or on direct appeal could not have been the result of any rational, strategic or tactical decision by counsel.

Notwithstanding Appellant's claim at the PCRA hearing that his criminal conduct took place only in Philadelphia County, the record reflects that Appellant received payment on the fraudulent insurance claim underlying this matter at his residence in Delaware County. Thus, venue was proper in Delaware County.

In fact, given that Delaware County had jurisdiction over this matter and venue was proper there, the trial court would likely have denied any motion to transfer venue and, thus, the outcome of this case would have likely been the same.

The PCRA court's decision is supported by the evidence of record and free from legal error. Accordingly, Appellant's claims merit no relief.

The order of the PCRA Court was affirmed.

ZALMA OPINION

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has created a Post Conviction Review Court to allow convicted criminals to review the sentences handed down by the trial court that convicted him. In this case, after pleading guilty to the crime of insurance fraud, was upset by the sentence he received. He was able to get it modified once and tried to say he was tried in the wrong jurisdiction to remove the sentence. His arguments were specious and the appellate court did not fall for his scheme and he will stay in prison as ordered.

(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.

Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe

Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg

Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk