Com. v. Smith, D.
352 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 6, 2016Background
- On July 15, 2014, Devon Smith (already serving an aggregate state sentence) kicked a uniformed maintenance worker and spat on a corrections officer; charged with aggravated assault and aggravated harassment by prisoner.
- Smith entered an open guilty plea on October 15, 2015. The Commonwealth agreed to recommend that the two new sentences run concurrently with each other and be in the standard range; all other sentencing decisions were left to the court.
- The court sentenced Smith the same day to 2–4 years on each count, the two new sentences to run concurrent to each other but consecutive to his existing state sentence.
- Smith filed a post-sentence motion claiming his plea was not knowing or intelligent because he believed the new sentences would run concurrent to his existing state sentence; the motion was denied by operation of law.
- Smith appealed, arguing the sentencing outcome created a manifest injustice that entitled him to withdraw his guilty plea. The Superior Court affirmed, concluding the plea colloquy was adequate and the plea agreement did not promise concurrency with prior sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Smith) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smith may withdraw his guilty plea post-sentence because he believed the new sentences would run concurrent to his existing state sentence | The plea agreement explicitly provided only that the two new sentences run concurrent to each other and that remaining terms were for the court; no promise of concurrency with other sentences was made | Smith contends he reasonably understood the plea would result in concurrency with his existing sentence, making his plea unknowing and involuntary (manifest injustice) | Denied. The court found the plea colloquy adequate, the agreed term was only internal concurrency, and a disappointed sentencing expectation does not establish manifest injustice |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Pollard, 832 A.2d 517 (Pa. Super. 2003) (guilty plea must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent)
- Commonwealth v. Watson, 835 A.2d 786 (Pa. Super. 2003) (colloquy requirements to ensure plea voluntariness)
- Commonwealth v. Muhammad, 794 A.2d 378 (Pa. Super. 2002) (totality of circumstances governs plea voluntariness)
- Commonwealth v. Osteen, 552 A.2d 1124 (Pa. Super. 1989) (prosecutor’s nonbinding recommendation does not create right to withdraw plea if court rejects recommendation)
- Commonwealth v. Sutherland, 340 A.2d 582 (Pa. Super. 1975) (sentence recommendation is among plea bargain terms)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 517 A.2d 1248 (Pa. 1986) (discussing court’s acceptance of plea agreements and sentencing recommendations)
- Commonwealth v. Willis, 369 A.2d 1189 (Pa. 1977) (six mandatory colloquy topics)
- Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 446 A.2d 591 (Pa. 1982) (withdrawing plea post-sentence requires showing manifest injustice)
- Commonwealth v. Owens, 467 A.2d 1159 (Pa. Super. 1983) (a disappointed sentence expectation is not a ground to withdraw plea)