Com. v. Ivey, V.
7 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 17, 2016Background
- Appellant was charged with three felonies for heroin manufacturing/delivery/possession; pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute heroin (less than two grams) on Dec 8, 2014.
- Plea colloquy reflected a controlled-buy occurred Aug 26, 2013; Appellant admitted the Commonwealth’s recitation and stated he was guilty.
- Sentencing set for Feb 12, 2015; defense obtained a continuance to review PSI report; continued to Mar 12, 2015.
- Appellant failed to appear for sentencing on Mar 12, 2015, leading to a bench warrant; on Mar 16 he sought to withdraw the plea; petition filed Mar 16, 2015.
- Hearing on Mar 19 advised withdrawal was possible but would reinstate withdrawn charges; continuance granted for 30 days to obtain counsel; another continuance occurred; Apr 23, 2015 he again failed to appear; no counsel appeared; bail set; sentencing notice issued Jun 23, 2015; final sentencing Aug 18, 2015.
- Trial court denied pre-sentence withdrawal; Appellant filed post-sentence withdrawal motion and appeal followed; appellate court affirmed denial of pre-sentence withdrawal based on the record and standards discussed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the pre-sentence withdrawal of guilty plea was properly denied under Forbes. | Ivey argues innocence and fairness warrant withdrawal under Forbes. | Commonwealth argues no fair and just reason; timing undermines innocence claim. | Affirmed; no abuse of discretion; innocence claim not credible given timing and conduct. |
| Whether equitable considerations apply given Carrasquillo after filing and partial hearing. | Ivey asserts equity favors withdrawal before Carrasquillo’s standard. | Commonwealth contends law should apply as of appellate decision date. | Applied Carrasquillo framework appropriately; no reversal. |
| Whether the court erred in applying Carrasquillo’s standard to pre-sentence withdrawal. | Innocence plausibility should suffice before sentencing. | Carrasquillo governs due to timing and need to avoid sentencing-testing device. | Court properly applied standard; no error; timing and motives undermined innocence claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Forbes, 299 A.2d 268 (Pa. 1973) (liberal pre-sentence withdrawal when fairness and justice shown, unless prejudice.)
- Commonwealth v. Carrasquillo, 115 A.3d 1284 (Pa. 2015) (no absolute right to withdraw; fair-and-just reason required; innocence must be plausible; timing matters.)
- Commonwealth v. Elia, 83 A.3d 254 (Pa. Super. 2013) (pre-sentence withdrawal standard and abuse of discretion framework.)
- Commonwealth v. Starr, 301 A.2d 592 (Pa. 1973) (pre-sentence withdrawal testing; difference from post-sentence standard.)
- Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337 (Pa. Super. 2014) (post-sentence standard shows manifest injustice; influences pre-sentence analysis.)
- Commonwealth v. Muntz, 630 A.2d 51 (Pa. Super. 1993) (post-sentence withdrawal requires manifest injustice; informs pre-sentence standard.)
- Commonwealth v. Housman, 986 A.2d 822 (Pa. 2009) (law in effect at time of appellate decision governs; general timing rule.)