270 A.3d 530
Pa. Super. Ct.2022Background
- Zachary L. Dinell, a care-home employee, was charged after taking photos on his cell phone of nude or partially nude residents without their knowledge or consent.
- He pled guilty (open plea) on 2/26/2020 to multiple counts including 14 counts of invasion of privacy (18 Pa.C.S. § 7507.1(a)(1)) and criminal use of a communication facility.
- Sentenced on 6/8/2020 to an aggregate term of 127 to 372 months.
- Post‑sentence, Dinell moved to withdraw his guilty pleas, arguing there was no factual basis as the plea colloquy never established the required sexual‑purpose element; the trial court denied the motion on 10/19/2020.
- Dinell obtained PCRA relief to restore appellate rights and appealed nunc pro tunc; on appeal he argued the plea colloquy was defective because he explicitly denied any sexual purpose and counsel and the court failed to elicit or advise that element.
- The Superior Court concluded the plea colloquy was facially defective for failing to establish the element that the pictures were taken "for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person," vacated the judgment of sentence, and remanded to permit withdrawal of the plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by denying Dinell’s post‑sentence motion to withdraw his guilty pleas because there was no factual basis for invasion of privacy. | Commonwealth: Dinell’s admission that he photographed nude/partially nude patients is sufficient to supply the factual basis; sexual‑purpose need not be admitted as personal intent. | Dinell: He explicitly said "there was nothing sexual about it at all," counsel misinformed him the sexual‑purpose element was not required, and the court failed to further inquire, so plea lacked a factual basis. | Court: Plea colloquy was defective for not establishing the statutorily required sexual‑purpose element; vacated judgment and ordered plea withdrawal and remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Flanagan, 854 A.2d 489 (Pa. 2004) (a facially defective plea colloquy that omits or misstates controlling law can render a plea unknowing and require withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018) (separate appeals required when multiple dockets are resolved)
- Commonwealth v. Broaden, 980 A.2d 124 (Pa. Super. 2009) (post‑sentence motions to withdraw pleas get heightened scrutiny; defendant must show manifest injustice)
- Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 712 A.2d 749 (Pa. 1998) (abuse of discretion standard and description of judicial discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Kehr, 180 A.3d 754 (Pa. Super. 2018) (discussion of standards for plea‑withdrawal and appellate review)