Com. v. Gray, C.
21 EDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Jan 12, 2017Background
- Craig Gray pleaded guilty on September 12, 2011 to third-degree murder and possession of an instrument of crime (PIC) pursuant to a negotiated plea. He was sentenced to 20–40 years for murder and 2½–5 years concurrent for PIC.
- Gray filed a timely post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea on September 22, 2011; the motion was denied on September 26, 2011. No direct appeal was pursued.
- Gray filed a timely pro se PCRA petition on September 7, 2012; counsel was appointed and an amended PCRA argued counsel failed to file a requested direct appeal.
- Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court (by agreement) reinstated Gray’s direct appeal rights nunc pro tunc on December 22, 2015; Gray filed a timely appeal.
- Gray’s sole claim on appeal: his guilty plea was not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary because he was taking the antipsychotic Risperdal at the plea colloquy and therefore could not understand the proceedings.
- During the plea colloquy the judge asked about mental health and medication; Gray acknowledged taking Risperdal and expressly stated it did not interfere with his ability to understand the proceedings. The trial court denied withdrawal; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Gray’s guilty plea involuntary because his mental state/medication prevented understanding? | Gray: Taking Risperdal at plea rendered him unable to understand the plea, so plea was not knowing, intelligent, voluntary. | Commonwealth/Trial Ct: Gray expressly told the court Risperdal did not interfere; statements during colloquy bind him and defeat contradictory later claims. | Court rejected Gray’s claim; plea was voluntary and motion to withdraw properly denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Lincoln, 72 A.3d 606 (Pa. Super. 2013) (guilty plea waives nonjurisdictional defects on direct appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Broaden, 980 A.2d 124 (Pa. Super. 2009) (post-sentence withdrawal requires showing of manifest injustice)
- Commonwealth v. Unangst, 71 A.3d 1017 (Pa. Super. 2013) (granting plea withdrawal is within trial court discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 48 A.3d 1275 (Pa. Super. 2012) (defendant bound by statements during plea colloquy)
- Commonwealth v. McCauley, 797 A.2d 920 (Pa. Super. 2001) (a defendant may not later contradict plea colloquy statements)