Com. v. Moragne-El, B.
1793 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 27, 2017Background
- Appellant Brandon Wade Moragne‑El pled guilty, as part of a negotiated deal resolving multiple Franklin County cases, to one count of possession with intent to deliver heroin (case No. 2221‑2014) in exchange for dismissal of other state charges and a joint recommendation of 7–14 years concurrent with a federal sentence.
- The plea colloquy occurred after lengthy negotiations; Moragne‑El admitted possession of about 10.07 grams of heroin and apologized on the record.
- Sentencing was scheduled for the following week to verify credit for time served; seven days later, before sentence, Moragne‑El orally moved to withdraw his plea.
- He asserted three reasons for withdrawal: (1) general innocence, (2) belief that a Maryland burglary prior did not render him ineligible for RRRI relief, and (3) advice from his sister after the plea.
- The trial court denied the pre‑sentence withdrawal motion, finding the innocence claim not plausible, characterizing the effort as manipulation/delay, and noting the plea colloquy admissions undermined the withdrawal request.
- The Superior Court affirmed, applying the post‑Forbes/Carrasquillo standards and concluding Moragne‑El’s assertions did not constitute a plausible, colorable claim of innocence or other fair‑and‑just reason to withdraw prior to sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by denying pre‑sentence motion to withdraw guilty plea | Moragne‑El argued he should be permitted to withdraw because he is innocent, his RRRI ineligibility belief, and post‑plea advice from his sister | Trial court/Commonwealth argued the claim of innocence was implausible given plea colloquy admissions; RRRI concern and sister’s advice are buyer’s remorse and delay tactics | Denial affirmed: withdrawal denied because innocence claim not plausible and other reasons insufficient; motion viewed as manipulation/delay |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Forbes, 299 A.2d 268 (Pa. 1973) (articulates "fair and just reason" standard for pre‑sentence plea withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Randolph, 718 A.2d 1242 (Pa. 1998) (formerly treated a defendant’s assertion of innocence as sufficient to permit pre‑sentence withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Carrasquillo, 115 A.3d 1284 (Pa. 2015) (requires innocence claims to be at least plausible; rejects per se rule)
- Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 116 A.3d 1103 (Pa. 2015) (companion case applying Carrasquillo principles)
- Commonwealth v. Blango, 150 A.3d 45 (Pa. Super. 2016) (applies Carrasquillo; holds implausible innocence claim did not justify withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Elia, 83 A.3d 254 (Pa. Super. 2013) (trial court has discretion on plea‑withdrawal motions)
- Commonwealth v. Kpou, 153 A.3d 1020 (Pa. Super. 2016) (pre‑sentence withdrawal standard is liberally construed)
- Commonwealth v. Islas, 156 A.3d 1185 (Pa. Super. 2017) (distinguishes cases where defendant’s innocence claim was plausible and withdrawal should have been permitted)