Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Hvizda, J.
116 A.3d 1103
| Pa. | 2015Background
- Appellee killed his estranged wife, surrendered, confessed, and pled guilty to first-degree murder and possession of an instrument of crime under a plea agreement for a life sentence plus a consecutive term.
- About two months later at sentencing, Appellee moved to withdraw the plea, claiming innocence of the murder charge.
- At the hearing, Appellee reiterated innocence; Commonwealth presented prison audiotapes suggesting an insincere or pretextual assertion.
- Common Pleas Court denied withdrawal, applying the Forbes liberal standard for presentence withdrawal, relying on Tennison to assess sincerity of innocence.
- Superior Court, in a divided decision, vacated and instructed acceptance of withdrawal, citing Katonka to bar credibility assessments; Commonwealth petitioned for review.
- This Court reversed the Superior Court, disapproved Lesko’s approach, reaffirmed Forbes for presentence withdrawal, and remanded to reinstate the judgment of sentence (with Carrasquillo addressing bare innocence).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What standard governs presentence withdrawal after plea? | Commonwealth argues Lesko/manifest-injustice applies post-plea. | Appellee contends Forbes governs presentence withdrawal. | Forbes governs; Lesko disapproved. |
| Is a bare assertion of innocence alone sufficient to withdraw a guilty plea pre-sentencing? | Commonwealth/appeal contends innocence sufficiency is adequate under flexible standards. | Appellee argues bare innocence suffices as fair-and-just reason. | Bare assertion alone is not sufficient; withdrawal denied |
| May trial courts assess credibility of an innocence claim in presentence withdrawal motions? | Plaintiff asserts credibility assessments should be foreclosed by Katonka. | Appellee supports trial-court credibility review. | Trial courts may evaluate credibility; per Lesko/ Katonka critique, credibility permitted within Forbes framework |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Forbes, 450 Pa. 185 (1973) (liberal standard for presentence withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Lesko, 502 Pa. 511 (1983) (manifest-injustice standard for post-sentence withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Tennison, 969 A.2d 572 (Pa. Super. 2009) (approach on sincerity of innocence claim; informs pre-sentence review)
- Commonwealth v. Katonka, 33 A.3d 44 (Pa. Super. 2011) (credibility assessments relative to innocence claims restricted)
- Commonwealth v. Santos, 450 Pa. 492 (1973) (trial-rights justification for liberal pre-sentence withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Gunter, 565 Pa. 79 (2001) (finality vs. individual rights tension in withdrawals)
- Ayala v. Phila. Bd. of Pub. Educ., 453 Pa. 584 (1973) (stare decisis and growth of the law in withdrawal decisions)