Com. v. Dolley, L.
Com. v. Dolley, L. No. 1328 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 21, 2017Background
- Victim (aged ~7–8 at time) reported three separate incidents of sexual abuse by Leroy Elmer Dolley while he was living with the victim's family (charges included rape of a child, aggravated indecent assault, indecent assault, false imprisonment, corruption of minors, attempt, and endangering welfare of children).
- A jury was selected for trial set December 10, 2015; on December 9, 2015 Dolley entered an open nolo contendere (no-contest) plea after discussing representation and trial readiness with the court and counsel.
- Dolley was sentenced on March 2, 2016 to an aggregate 10–40 years’ imprisonment and required to register as a sexual offender; he filed post-sentence motions and timely appealed after the trial court denied them.
- On appeal Dolley challenged (1) the discretionary aspects of his sentence as excessive given no prior record and time since offenses, and (2) the denial of his pre-sentence motion to withdraw the no-contest plea, arguing duress/ineffective assistance and claiming innocence.
- The trial court had reviewed the presentence report, heard victim impact and allocution, and conducted an extensive plea colloquy at which Dolley stated he was satisfied with counsel; the court denied withdrawal, finding no fair-and-just reason and noting prejudice to the Commonwealth/victim if trial were reinitiated.
- The Superior Court affirmed, concluding the sentencing court did not abuse its discretion and that Dolley failed to demonstrate a colorable claim of innocence or other fair-and-just reason to withdraw the plea.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Dolley's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentence (10–40 years) was illegal/unreasonable (discretionary aspects) | Sentence was within guideline range and properly considered presentence report, victim impact, and mitigating factors | Sentence excessive given lack of prior record and long passage of time since offenses | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; sentencing court considered relevant factors and PSR |
| Whether trial court should have permitted withdrawal of no-contest plea pre-sentencing | Denial proper: plea was knowing/voluntary after colloquy; withdrawal would substantially prejudice Commonwealth and victim | Plea entered under duress/ineffective counsel; claims of innocence warrant withdrawal | Affirmed — Dolley failed to show fair-and-just reason or a colorable claim of innocence; plea colloquy contradicted duress claim; withdrawal would prejudice Commonwealth |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (standards for appellate review of discretionary sentencing and factors appellate courts should consider)
- Commonwealth v. Carrasquillo, 115 A.3d 1284 (Pa. 2015) (pre-sentence withdrawal of plea: bare assertion of innocence insufficient; requires at least a plausible/colorable demonstration)
- Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 116 A.3d 1103 (Pa. 2015) (companion to Carrasquillo refining pre-sentence plea-withdrawal analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Forbes, 299 A.2d 268 (Pa. 1973) (formulation of "fair and just reason" and prejudice test for pre-sentence plea withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Ross, 447 A.2d 942 (Pa. 1982) (recognition that dismissal of witnesses in reliance on a plea can constitute substantial prejudice to the Commonwealth)