Commonwealth v. Gordy, 73 A.3d 620

Appellant pled guilty on May 17, 2012 to one count each of rape, rape of a child, and simple assault arising from 2011 charges involving two minor complainants aged about twelve and five.
Prior to sentencing, on July 31, 2012, Appellant moved to withdraw his pleas alleging innocence; the court held a hearing and denied relief.
Appellant was sentenced as scheduled; he later filed a post-sentence motion challenging the pre-sentence withdrawal denial and seeking sentence modification, which the court denied.
On appeal, the Commonwealth and the trial court rely on prior case law to support denial of withdrawal; Appellant argues the pre-sentence withdrawal standard was misapplied and that the waiver of withdrawal rights was invalid.
The Pennsylvania Superior Court vacates the judgment of sentence, holds the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw, and remands with instructions to withdraw the pleas and conduct proceedings consistent with that direction.
The court declines to reach the sentencing issue given the remand and disposal of the withdrawal issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying pre-sentence withdrawal of pleas	Appellant argues liberal standard applied incorrectly	Commonwealth argues no abuse; proper prejudice inquiry and credibility findings justified	Yes; abuse of discretion; withdrawal granted
Whether the purported waiver of the right to withdraw pleas was valid	Appellant cites Pardo to show waiver is invalid	Waiver purportedly supported by plea colloquy and record	Waiver invalid; proper standard controls
Whether an assertion of innocence constitutes a fair and just reason to withdraw pre-sentence pleas	Appellant asserted innocence in the motion	Iseley limits innocence as sole basis in some contexts	Yes; innocence in this context constitutes fair and just reason
Whether the court’s concerns about witness cooperation and memory prejudiced the Commonwealth	No substantial prejudice shown; two months delay insufficient	Prejudice acceptable under cited precedents	Not supported by record; no substantial prejudice
Whether the trial court’s comments about abuse of the witnesses rights and its overall approach invalidated the denial	Court’s comments improper and prejudicial	Court’s credibility determinations permissible under law	Court abused discretion; remand appropriate

Commonwealth v. Katonka, 33 A.3d 44 (Pa. Super. 2011) (liberal pre-sentence plea withdrawal standard; innocence as fair reason)
Commonwealth v. Pardo, 35 A.3d 1222 (Pa. Super. 2011) (waiver of right to withdraw plea prior to sentencing invalid)
Commonwealth v. Dickter, 318 Pa. Super. 372, 465 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 1983) (delay between plea and withdrawal can prejudice Commonwealth)
Commonwealth v. Carr, 375 Pa. Super. 168, 543 A.2d 1232 (Pa. Super. 1988) (memory and witness cooperation addressed in delay context)
Commonwealth v. Cole, 387 Pa. Super. 328, 564 A.2d 203 (Pa. Super. 1989) (improper manipulation of proceedings to affect availability of witnesses)
Commonwealth v. Iseley, 419 Pa. Super. 364, 615 A.2d 408 (Pa. Super. 1992) (innocence assertion generally not sole basis where multiple pleas; context matters)