Commonwealth v. Norton, M., Aplt.
201 A.3d 112
Pa.2019Background
- Michael Norton was charged with multiple counts of indecent assault and corruption of minors based on alleged abuse of a child between 2008–2012; preliminary hearing narrowed some counts.
- Norton entered a negotiated nolo contendere plea (one count indecent assault, one count corruption) on the day jury selection was to begin; plea included SOAB assessment and registration consequences.
- Sixteen weeks after pleading, Norton filed a presentence motion to withdraw his plea, asserting innocence, inability to live with taking the plea, and intent to challenge the Commonwealth’s evidence at trial.
- Trial court initially granted withdrawal under prevailing Superior Court precedent but reconsidered after this Court’s decisions in Carrasquillo and Hvizda, then denied withdrawal applying Carrasquillo’s plausibility/colorable-demonstration standard.
- Superior Court affirmed; this Court granted allowance to decide whether the trial court properly exercised discretion under Carrasquillo and ultimately affirmed the denial of Norton’s motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Norton) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a presentence bare assertion of innocence alone requires granting withdrawal of a guilty/nolo plea | Norton: His maintained innocence, timing, and a viable defense (attack victim credibility; challenge 404(b) evidence) make his innocence claim plausible and justify withdrawal | Commonwealth: Norton offered only a bare assertion without a colorable factual showing; prior vulnerabilities in the case were known pre-plea, so withdrawal is not required | Court: Under Carrasquillo, a presentence claim of innocence must be at least plausible; Norton’s claim was a bare assertion and the trial court did not abuse discretion in denying withdrawal |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in denying withdrawal given plea timing and delay in moving to withdraw | Norton: Timing and delay do not negate a plausible innocence claim; motion filed months before sentencing and not manipulative | Commonwealth: Entry on day of trial and post-plea delay undermine credibility; defendant had ample opportunity to assess evidence pre-plea | Court: Trial court permissibly considered timing and delay as relevant to plausibility and sincerity; no abuse of discretion |
| Standard of review for presentence plea-withdrawal motions | Norton: Argues liberal-forgiving standard should favor withdrawal when sufficiency Defense is plausible | Commonwealth: Recommends deference to trial court under Carrasquillo and abuse-of-discretion review | Court: Reaffirms Carrasquillo’s “plausible / colorable demonstration” test and that trial courts have discretion; appellate review is for abuse of that discretion |
| Whether attacking Commonwealth’s evidence (victim credibility, excluding prior-bad-acts) automatically constitutes a plausible innocence claim | Norton: Such trial defenses could plausibly lead to acquittal and therefore justify withdrawal | Commonwealth: Those defenses were apparent pre-plea; raising them post-plea does not make the innocence claim plausible | Court: Defense theory alone does not automatically make an innocence claim plausible; trial court may evaluate whether the defendant made a colorable showing under circumstances and here did not err in concluding he had not |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Carrasquillo, 115 A.3d 1284 (Pa. 2015) (holds a presentence claim of innocence must be at least plausible; court asks whether defendant made a colorable demonstration such that withdrawal would promote fairness and justice)
- Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 116 A.3d 1103 (Pa. 2015) (applies Carrasquillo and upholds denial where claim of innocence was bare/pretextual)
- Commonwealth v. Forbes, 299 A.2d 268 (Pa. 1973) (pre-Carrasquillo rule endorsing liberal allowance of presentence withdrawals for any fair and just reason)
- Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122 (Pa. 2007) (explains abuse-of-discretion standard for appellate review of trial court decisions)
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (describes nature and limits of judicial discretion)