Commonwealth v. Unangst
71 A.3d 1017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Two 2012 criminal actions: CP-35CR-0000562-2012 theft by unlawful taking of $4,000 of truck parts from a scrap yard, witnessed and filmed; CP-35-CR-0000573-2012 reckless endangerment, attempted theft, trespass based on November 4, 2011 incident, videotaped.
- May 21, 2012, Appellant pled guilty to the charges in CP-35-CR-0000573-2012; June 6, 2012, pleaded to attempted theft in the other case; August 30, 2012, filed a written petition to withdraw pleas asserting innocence.
- Commonwealth did not claim prejudice from withdrawal in response to the petition; court scheduled a hearing but later denied the petition after Capias-related delays.
- Appellant, with a pre-sentence score of four, admitted taking scrap metal but claimed no theft or reckless endangerment.
- Trial court denied the withdrawal and sentenced Appellant to two to five years with a fines for trespass; Appellant appealed challenging the denial and requesting withdrawal rights under Rule 591.
- Court held that the presentence motion to withdraw should have been granted since Appellant asserted innocence and Commonwealth did not show prejudice; judgment vacated and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pre-sentence withdrawal of guilty pleas requires grant when innocence is asserted | Unangst asserted innocence in the motion | Commonwealth argued no prejudice and no need to withdraw | Pre-sentence withdrawal granted; innocence asserted is fair and just reason |
| Whether the trial court could assess sincerity of innocence | Court erred by judging sincerity of innocence | Not explicitly argued; focus on prejudice | Court erred; sincerity of innocence cannot be judged pre-sentencing |
| Whether denial relied on improper dilatory tactic reasoning | Pardo precludes denial as dilatory tactic | Denied as dilatory tactic may be considered | Invalid basis to deny; withdrawal should be permitted |
| Whether Tennison guidance supports denial | Tennison not applicable; innocence asserted clearly | Tennison distinguishes conditional innocence | Tennison does not control; innocence was clear and unconditioned |
| Whether Commonwealth prejudice exists to deny withdrawal | No prejudice shown by Commonwealth | Prejudice not necessary to prove in this context | No prejudice shown; withdrawal warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Forbes, 450 Pa. 185 (Pa. 1973) (pre-sentencing right to withdraw for any fair and just reason)
- Commonwealth v. Randolph, 718 A.2d 1242 (Pa. 1998) (innocence assertion before sentencing supports withdrawal when no prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Katonka, 33 A.3d 44 (Pa.Super.2011) (innocence assertion before sentencing requires withdrawal absent prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Kirsch, 930 A.2d 1282 (Pa.Super.2007) (innocence assertion constitutes fair and just reason if no prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Pardo, 35 A.3d 1222 (Pa.Super.2011) (pre-sentence withdrawal denied if prejudice shown; otherwise allowed)
- Commonwealth v. Tennison, 969 A.2d 572 (Pa.Super.2009) (court may distinguish genuine innocence claims from strategic delays)