Commonwealth v. Islas
156 A.3d 1185
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Islas, a camp counselor, was charged with three counts of indecent assault involving a camper (incidents alleged Aug. 14 & 16, 2015).
- On Jan. 8, 2016 (three days before trial), Islas pleaded guilty to one count (first-degree misdemeanor) in exchange for nolle prossing the other two counts.
- New counsel entered on Feb. 11, 2016; that same day Islas filed a pre-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea asserting innocence.
- The trial court denied the motion after a Feb. 25, 2016 hearing and later sentenced Islas on Mar. 31, 2016 to 183 days to 5 years (time served to 5 years less one day).
- On appeal, the Superior Court found the trial court applied the post-sentence "manifest injustice" standard instead of the pre-sentence liberal-allowance standard and concluded Islas presented a plausible, colorable claim of innocence.
- The Superior Court vacated the judgment of sentence and remanded for further proceedings, finding the Commonwealth had not proven substantial prejudice from allowing withdrawal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Islas’ pre-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea | Commonwealth: Islas offered no fair-and-just reason; allowing withdrawal would prejudice the Commonwealth and re-traumatize the victim; witness availability concerns | Islas: Asserted innocence; moved promptly (≈1 month after plea); new counsel advised available defenses and witnesses; no evidence Commonwealth would be substantially prejudiced | Court: Trial court erred—applied wrong (post-sentence) standard; Islas’ claim was at least plausible; Commonwealth failed to show substantial prejudice; vacated sentence and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Forbes, 299 A.2d 268 (Pa. 1973) (pre-sentence withdrawal should be liberally allowed; grant if any fair and just reason exists absent substantial prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Carrasquillo, 115 A.3d 1284 (Pa. 2015) (bare assertion of innocence insufficient; innocence claim must be at least plausible; retain liberal-allowance standard)
- Commonwealth v. Blango, 150 A.3d 45 (Pa. Super. 2016) (applied Carrasquillo; implausible innocence claim does not merit withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Elia, 83 A.3d 254 (Pa. Super. 2013) (explaining solicitude for defendants pre-sentence and rationale for liberal allowance)
- Commonwealth v. Kirsch, 930 A.2d 1282 (Pa. Super. 2007) (prejudice requires showing Commonwealth is worse off than if trial had proceeded as scheduled)
- Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 116 A.3d 1103 (Pa. 2015) (example of a bare assertion of innocence where defendant offered no supporting evidence)
- State v. Munroe, 45 A.3d 348 (N.J. 2012) (court should not deny pre-sentence withdrawal merely because claim of innocence likely will fail at trial)