Com. v. Jury, J., 1445 MDA 2020

Appellant Jason Jury pleaded guilty to strangulation (F2), terroristic threats (M1), and criminal trespass (F3) on June 17, 2020 after a written and oral colloquy and admissions to the facts.
Less than a month later Jury filed a pre‑sentence Motion to Withdraw his guilty plea asserting innocence; the written motion contained only a profession of innocence.
At the withdrawal hearing Jury claimed he was unaware of a 2001 escape conviction that appeared in the PSI and affected his prior record score; he did not dispute the conviction existed.
The trial court found Jury not credible, characterized his claim as a bald assertion of innocence (and possibly a sentence‑based motive), denied the motion, and rescheduled sentencing after Jury briefly fled the courtroom.
At sentencing the court imposed an aggregate term of 48 to 90 months. Jury appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion in denying the pre‑sentence withdrawal request.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Jury's pre‑sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea	Jury: He timely sought withdrawal, asserted innocence, claimed ignorance of a 2001 conviction in the PSI, and says the court failed to articulate reasons or consider Commonwealth prejudice	Trial court/Commonwealth: Jury’s assertion was a bald, incredible claim; prior conviction disclosure did not condition the plea; withdrawal would not promote fairness and justice	Denied — appellate court affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion: Jury offered only an unsubstantiated claim of innocence and an implausible motive tied to sentencing, so no fair and just reason to withdraw the plea

Commonwealth v. Islas, 156 A.3d 1185 (Pa. Super. 2017) (standard: review denial of pre‑sentence withdrawal for abuse of discretion)
Commonwealth v. Kpou, 153 A.3d 1020 (Pa. Super. 2016) (pre‑sentence withdrawal should be liberally allowed but not automatic)
Commonwealth v. Carrasquillo, 115 A.3d 1284 (Pa. 2015) (innocence claims must be at least plausible to justify pre‑sentence withdrawal)
Commonwealth v. Norton, 201 A.3d 112 (Pa. 2019) (trial courts uniquely positioned to assess credibility of innocence claims)
Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 116 A.3d 1103 (Pa. 2015) (reaffirming limits on bald assertions of innocence)
Commonwealth v. Williams, 198 A.3d 1181 (Pa. Super. 2018) (discussing factors for withdrawal motions)
Commonwealth v. Tennison, 969 A.2d 572 (Pa. Super. 2009) (totality of circumstances governs fair-and-just inquiry)