Commonwealth v. Katonka
33 A.3d 44
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Katonka pled guilty to multiple sexual abuse charges involving his young stepdaughter, with conduct spanning 2003–2008.
- On September 29, 2008, he reached a plea agreement in which the Commonwealth expected a 10–20 year prison term followed by 15 years of probation.
- The trial court deferred sentencing pending an evaluation by the Sexual Offenders Assessment Board.
- Katonka filed a Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea on February 16, 2009, before sentencing; the written motion did not assert innocence.
- At the later hearings, Katonka asserted innocence, the court deemed this incredible, and denied the motion to withdraw.
- Katonka was sentenced to 10–25 years in prison followed by 15 years of probation and was found to be a sexually violent predator on the record.
- On appeal, the en banc court vacated the judgment and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the Commonwealth would be prejudiced by withdrawal of the plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-sentence withdrawal standard applies | Katonka argues Forbes/Randolph require fair and just reason. | Commonwealth maintains standard allows trial court discretion. | Fair and just reason required; remanded for prejudice ruling |
| Is innocence asserted pre-sentence a fair and just reason | Katonka clearly asserted innocence prior to sentencing. | Court should assess credibility of innocence claim. | Yes, clear pre-sentence innocence assertion is fair and just; remand for prejudice analysis |
| Prejudice to Commonwealth when withdrawing plea | Withdrawal would not prejudice Commonwealth | Withdrawal could prejudice Commonwealth | Remand for evidentiary hearing to resolve prejudice issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Forbes, 450 Pa. 185 (Pa. 1973) (liberal pre-sentence withdrawal standard; fairness and justice test)
- Commonwealth v. Randolph, 718 A.2d 1242 (Pa. 1998) (pre-sentence credibility of innocence not a barrier to withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Tennison, 969 A.2d 572 (Pa. Super. 2009) (totality of circumstances governs sincerity of innocence assertion pre-sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Kirsch, 930 A.2d 1282 (Pa. 2007) (plea-colloquy does not bar later withdrawal based on innocence)
- Commonwealth v. Wright, 14 A.3d 798 (Pa. 2011) (confession not decisive of guilt/innocence for withdrawal analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Mosley, 283 Pa. Super. 28 (Pa. Super. 1980) (distinguishable; not controlling where credibility determined after innocence assertion)