Com. v. Upton, J., 1309 WDA 2016

Appellant Jonathan Upton pled open guilty to statutory sexual assault, indecent assault, incest, endangering the welfare of a child, and corruption of minors after his then-14-year-old daughter reported repeated sexual abuse beginning when she was eight.
Prior to plea, Upton made inculpatory statements to police and later to a SOAB investigator admitting oral sexual intercourse and showing pornography to the victim; SOAB diagnosed pedophilic disorder and evaluated him as a sexually violent predator (SVP).
On the day of jury selection Upton entered a knowing, voluntary guilty plea after a colloquy where he confirmed understanding rights, penalties, and the factual basis (oral sexual intercourse and showing pornography).
After the plea, defense counsel changed; new counsel moved to withdraw the guilty plea before sentencing, claiming innocence and coercion by prior counsel; the trial court held a hearing and found the testimony not credible and denied the motion.
The court accepted the SOAB finding that Upton was an SVP and sentenced him to an aggregate 10–20 years (120–240 months) in the aggravated guideline range; Upton appealed the denial of plea withdrawal and the discretionary aspects of sentence.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by denying pre-sentence motion to withdraw guilty plea	Upton claimed innocence and said prior counsel pressured him to plead	Plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by Upton’s inculpatory statements; withdrawal not warranted	Denial affirmed — Upton’s assertions were implausible and amounted to bare claims of innocence given his prior admissions and lack of corroboration
Whether sentencing in aggravated range was an abuse of discretion	Sentence relied on impermissible/unsubstantiated factors, court observation, bias, and failure to consider guidelines	Court relied on PSI, SOAB report, Upton’s statements, SVP finding, harm to victim, and lack of remorse — proper sentencing factors	Denial affirmed — sentence within aggravated guideline range and not clearly unreasonable; court relied on substantiated evidence and appropriate factors

Commonwealth v. Carrasquillo, 115 A.3d 1284 (Pa. 2015) (bare assertion of innocence insufficient; must be plausible to permit pre-sentence withdrawal of plea)
Commonwealth v. Forbes, 292 A.2d 268 (Pa. 1973) (historical rule that pre-sentence withdrawal should be liberally allowed)
Commonwealth v. Elia, 83 A.3d 254 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review on plea-withdrawal motions: abuse of discretion; defendant must show fair and just reason)
Commonwealth v. Islas, 156 A.3d 1185 (Pa. Super. 2017) (example where plausible innocence shown and plea withdrawal permitted)
Commonwealth v. Zirkle, 107 A.3d 127 (Pa. Super. 2014) (discretionary aspects of sentencing reviewed for manifest abuse; four-part jurisdictional test for appeals)
Commonwealth v. Bowen, 975 A.2d 1120 (Pa. Super. 2009) (sentence within aggravated range remains a guideline sentence)
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 167 A.3d 17 (Pa. Super. 2017) (presumption that court considered appropriate sentencing factors when PSI available)
Commonwealth v. Shugars, 895 A.2d 1270 (Pa. Super. 2006) (raising reliance on impermissible factors presents a substantial question for appellate review)