Commonwealth v. Williams
198 A.3d 1181
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- In 2011 Williams and accomplices kidnapped and gang-raped an antique-store employee; DNA linked Williams to the victim.
- In 2013 Williams was charged with 17 offenses; in 2016 he entered a plea agreement (Pa.R.Crim.P. 590(B)) pleading guilty to rape, kidnapping to facilitate a felony, and conspiracy to commit rape in exchange for nolle prosse of 14 counts.
- As part of the plea agreement Williams stipulated that withdrawal of his guilty plea would substantially prejudice the Commonwealth.
- Williams filed a pre-sentence motion to withdraw his plea; after an evidentiary hearing the trial court denied the motion, credited trial counsel over Williams on coercion claims, and later sentenced Williams to an aggregate 14–28 years.
- Williams appealed, arguing the court erred in denying withdrawal and that the court vindictively imposed consecutive sentences for his attempt to withdraw; the Commonwealth defended the binding stipulation and noted sentencing challenges were not preserved.
- The Superior Court affirmed denial of withdrawal, found the vindictiveness/discretionary-sentencing claim waived, but vacated the sexually violent predator (SVP) designation under controlling precedent and remanded for notification of registration requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Williams) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying Williams’s pre-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea | The plea agreement included Williams’s stipulation that withdrawal would substantially prejudice the Commonwealth, so withdrawal should be denied | Williams asserted coercion by counsel and actual innocence as fair-and-just reasons to withdraw | Plea-stipulation was binding; denial affirmed. Even ignoring the stipulation, court reasonably rejected coercion claim and found innocence claim implausible given DNA evidence |
| Whether the court may punish a defendant for exercising the right to seek plea withdrawal by imposing consecutive (rather than concurrent) sentences (vindictiveness) | Sentencing discretion; any challenge must be preserved to be reviewable | Williams argued the consecutive sentences were vindictive retaliation for seeking withdrawal | Claim not preserved at sentencing or in post-sentence motion; discretionary-aspects challenge waived, so no relief on vindictiveness claim |
| Legality of the SVP designation imposed at sentencing | Commonwealth relied on trial court’s designation | Williams did not raise this issue on appeal | SVP designation vacated sua sponte under controlling precedent that the SORNA designation mechanism is constitutionally flawed; judgment otherwise affirmed; remanded for registration notification |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Carrasquillo, 115 A.3d 1284 (Pa. 2015) (pre-sentence withdrawal requires fair-and-just reason unless withdrawal would substantially prejudice the Commonwealth)
- Commonwealth v. Porreca, 595 A.2d 23 (Pa. 1991) (terms of plea agreements can define a defendant’s right to withdraw a plea)
- Commonwealth v. Root, 179 A.3d 511 (Pa. Super. 2018) (stipulated pleas entitling withdrawal if stipulated sentence not received)
- Commonwealth v. Kpou, 153 A.3d 1020 (Pa. Super. 2016) (pre-sentence withdrawal requests should be liberally allowed)
- Commonwealth v. Butler, 173 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2017) (SORNA mechanism for SVP designation constitutionally flawed; SVP designation issue can render sentence illegal)