Commonwealth v. Pardo
35 A.3d 1222
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Pardo appeals after pleading guilty to two counts of delivery of a controlled substance and being sentenced in Pike County.
- At sentencing, the court determined Pardo was not RRRI-eligible and imposed a 5 years 9 months to 15 years term.
- Pardo moved to withdraw his guilty plea prior to sentencing, asserting innocence and misrepresentations by counsel.
- The trial court denied withdrawal, relying on a boilerplate waiver in the written guilty plea colloquy.
- The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed, holding pre-sentencing withdrawal can be fair and just and remanded for withdrawal of the plea.
- On remand, issues include RRRI eligibility, sentencing entrapment, and credit-time conundrums, which become moot if withdrawal is granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pre-sentence withdrawal of a guilty plea was proper | Pardo asserts fair and just reason due to innocence and counsel misrepresentation. | Waiver in the plea prevented withdrawal and the court should respect the agreement. | Abuse of discretion to enforce waiver; pre-sentence withdrawal granted. |
| RRRI eligibility and its impact on sentence | Counsel promised RRRI eligibility; eligibility questioned after PSI. | RRRI eligibility is a sentencing issue; waiver controls if plea signed. | Moot because reversal and remand for new trial; pre-sentence withdrawal concerns take precedence. |
| Sentencing entrapment claim and related consecutive sentences | Entreaties to withdraw and challenge sentencing based on entrapment were not adequately addressed. | Issues waived for lack of Rule 2119(f) statement; moot due to remand. | Waived/moot; no relief on entrapment or consecutive-sentence claims. |
| Credit for time served against multiple sentences | Time served should be credited appropriately pending sentencing. | Credit rules apply to time served; no double credit allowed. | Moot; case remanded for withdrawal; credit issues unresolved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Lesko, 502 Pa. 511, 467 A.2d 307 (Pa. 1983) (pre-sentence withdrawal standards liberalized; abuse of discretion standard)
- Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 498 Pa. 342, 446 A.2d 591 (Pa. 1982) (liberal pre-sentence withdrawal principle)
- Commonwealth v. Forbes, 450 Pa. 299, 299 A.2d 268 (Pa. 1978) (liberal standard for pre-sentence withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Randolph, 553 Pa. 224, 718 A.2d 1242 (Pa. 1998) (recognizes fair and just reason to withdraw pre-sentencing plea)
- Commonwealth v. Porreca, 528 Pa. 46, 595 A.2d 23 (Pa. 1991) (plea agreement terms govern withdrawal rights)
- Commonwealth v. Katonka, 2011 Pa. Super. 223, 33 A.3d 44 (Pa. Super. 2011) (innocence assertions can justify pre-sentence withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Reichle, 404 Pa. Super. 1, 589 A.2d 1140 (Pa. Super. 1991) (plea amounts to waiver of defects except legality of sentence)