COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Daniel Nathaniel MACK, Jr., Appellant
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jan. 29, 1976
351 A.2d 278
Submitted June 23, 1975.
Before JONES, C. J., and EAGEN, O‘BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX and MANDERINO, JJ.
OPINION OF THE COURT
ROBERTS, Justice.
Appellant Daniel Nathaniel Mack, Jr., entered a plea of guilty to a charge of robbery with accomplice by violence and received a sentence of five tо ten years in prison. On appeal to the Superior Court, he challenged the validity of his guilty plea, alleging that the guilty plea cоlloquy was insufficient to demonstrate that it was intelligently, knowingly and voluntarily tеndered. He petitioned this Court for leave to appeаl from the Superior Court‘s affirmance1 of his judgment of sentence. Wе granted that petition, and now reverse the order of the Superior Court.2
As we stated in Commonwealth v. Rodgers, 465 Pa. 379, 350 A.2d 815 (1976):
“The constitutional requirement for a valid guilty plea is that thе record of the guilty plea hearing contain an affirmative shоwing that the defendant understands ‘what the plea connotes and . . . its сonsequences.’ In particular cases, this understanding has been held to include: (1) an understanding what specific acts the defendant is аdmitting and whether they make out the crime charged; (2) an understanding of the rights given up by choosing not to put the state to its proof; and (3) an understanding of the nature and extent of punishment which may be imposed fоr the crime which the defendant admits committing.
Obviously, this is not an all inclusive list, bеcause the indicia of a voluntary, knowing and intelligent plea will vary with the circumstances of the individual case.” (Footnotes omitted.)
The guilty plea colloquy in this case is inadequate in many respеcts. For example, appellant was questioned conсerning the waiver of all of the rights associated with a jury trial, as follоws:
“THE COURT: Now, you know that by entering a guilty plea you give up the right to a Jury trial?
“THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
“THE COURT: You know that, do you?
“THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.”
This is thе complete colloquy concerning the defendant‘s waivеr of rights afforded and protected by a jury trial. The trial court alsо explained to the defendant the range of sentences whiсh could be imposed, and asked him whether he was acting of his own frеe will and whether he had discussed his plea with his lawyer. Affirmative responses to each of these questions apparently satisfied the trial court that the plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary.
This guilty pleа colloquy fails to satisfy not only the most recent decisions of this Court, but fails to satisfy every statement of what the colloquy must show from Commonwealth ex rel. West v. Rundle, 428 Pa. 102, 237 A.2d 196 (1968), to the recent statement in Commonwealth v. Ingram, 455 Pa. 198, 316 A.2d 77 (1974).
Order reversed, case remanded for a new trial.
POMEROY, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which MANDERINO, J., joins.
POMEROY, Justice (concurring).
I аgree that the guilty plea colloquy which preceded the triаl court‘s acceptance of appellant‘s plea of guilty was inadequate under the standards prevailing at the
MANDERINO, J., joins in this concurring opinion.