*1 Appellant. v. Maddox, Commonwealth J., 1972. Before C. Submitted November Jones, Nix Man- Roberts, Eagen, O’Brien, Pomeroy, JJ. derino, H. Glarke, Jr.,
Eugene appellant. M. Assistant James Stein, Milton District Attorney, D. District Richard A. Grawford, Deputy Attorney, Assistant District and Arlen Attorney, First Sprague, District Specter, Attorney, appel- Commonwealth, lee.
Opinion February 5,1973: Mr. Justice Roberts, *2 On Wil- June seven old Antoinette year 13, 1970, while liams, on the front of her sitting porch house, in in the caught crossfire of a and was shot gang fight the head. She evening. died at later hospital
On the was arrested and appellant following day, streets charged with firearms on the carrying public and with the murder Antoinette Williams. Subse- quently, ap- the firearms was withdrawn and charge pellant pleaded to murder The Com- guilty generally. no monwealth certified that rose having charge than higher second degree murder, degree guilt hearing was held in P. accordance with Pa. R. Crim. 319A and appellant degree was found of second guilty murder. He fifteen im- was sentenced to five to years prisonment. A petition for reconsideration of sentence was heard and denied.
On this appellant direct asserts appeal, record does not indicate that his was a know- ing and intelligent decision. he contends Specifically, that he was never right informed of his a jury or of the innocence. presumption of Furthermore, argues that his “options” “possibilities” were not explained. record appellant urges that Finally, fails to disclose how acts committed constituted the offense with which he was find charged. Since we no merit in any appellant’s claims, the judgment sentence is affirmed.
Rule 319(a) of the Rules Criminal Pennsylvania Procedure (effective February 1989 as amended) precludes unless a acceptance guilty plea colloquy appears the record which establishes defendant’s “voluntarily understandingly amendment of that rule, to the
made.” Even prior from pleas attack, in insulate order stated that we which satisfied be conducted should a colloquy understands the nature the “defendant the acts suffi jury trial, right charges, charged he is the offenses constitute cient to range of sentences.” Common and the permissible 428 Pa. 237 A. Rundle, rel. ex West wealth P. R. Crim. discussing (1968). Recently, 2d 196, 198 of our Rule counterpart P. the federal purposes enunciated the Supreme Court United States em “First, although colloquy: procedure of such a to be constitution not been held bodied Rule has assist the designed district ally mandated, determination constitutionally required making Sec truly voluntary. defendant’s *3 record complete Rule intended to ond, produce the is factors relevant the is entered of the at the time plea more Thus, voluntariness determination. to this more tends is adhered it meticulously the Rule to, expeditious or at least enable more discourage, to post- and often disposition the numerous frivolous of, attacks constitutional validity conviction 394 U.S. McCarthy States, v. United guilty pleas.” omitt 89 459, (1969) (footnotes S. Ct. 1170 465, 1166, In col- addition, suggested it has been that a ed).1 1 McCarthy States, 459, United The decision in 89 pursuant supervisory (1969), Ct. was made to the S. 1166 Court’s 464, power Id. over the federal courts. at S. Ct. at 1169. lower 89 Boykin Alabama, However, 238, (1969), U.S. S. 395 89 Ct. 1709 plain error, record, “it on the the Court held that was face petitioner’s guilty accept judge to without [state] intelligent voluntary.” showing was and an affirmative Id. 242, at 1711. at 89 S. Ct. dissenting opinion Boyhin, in his Justice stated “so Habían opinion, one make out from the far as can Court’s what now in prophylactic procedures being held Criminal effect “digni- for a of providing third purpose serves loquy with the defendant designed impress fied procedure Eule rights.” Hoffman, for his and concern its fairness 149 (1967). 45 F.E.D. Guilty, and the Plea of An conducted colloquy of the examination deter the trial judge properly instant case reveals the defendant inquiry “after mined E. made.” Pa. understandingly voluntarily [was] examined was Appellant Crim P. 319 (a).2 he un as to whether in the court’s presence, counsel,3 In to murder. derstood that he was pleading whether ashed appellant defense counsel addition, only he waived not guilty, by pleading understood that, rights but also “most right jury trial, [his] appel “most of trial” as concerning the well [his] that defense The record further shows late rights.” inquired possible sentences explained counsel been made. threats or had any promises whether record contention is that Appellant’s primary he was of how acts does not disclose that aware which he committed constituted the offense with accepting before It is clear charged. must itself that there satisfy the trial court
guilty,
substantially
applicable
tbe
as matter
Bule 11 are
States
process.”
Id. at
S. Ct. at 1714.
federal constitutional
due
very
colloquy
ones
in tbe instant
case is
similar
to tbe
Tbe
approved by
Butler,
Pa.
this
in Commonwealth v.
Court
Martin,
(1972)
Commonwealth v.
Pa.
A. 2d
(1971).
A. 2d 241
*4
3
Rundle,
ex rel.
v.
Pa.
in Commonwealth
West
428
stated
We
colloquy
performed
(1968),
tbe
“need not be
A. 2d 196
237
attorney
by
or
alone. Either defense counsel
the district
tbe court
necessary
presence
questioning
may
tbe court
tbe
in the
of
conduct
Tbe essential
element
is therefore
a recorded
on tbe record.
prisoner
fully
the ramifications
aware of
demonstration
voluntarily.”
entering
plea
n.5,
tbe
Id. at
and is
106
of his action
procedure is,
be,
it
n.5. This
as must
conformi
A. 2d at 198
237
ty
and tbe comment
thereto.
B.
P.
Pa.
Crim.
319
with
McCarthy v.
a
basis for
plea. See, e.g.,
factual
United
United
v.
F.
Cantor,
States
States, supra;
2d
v. United
F.
Majko
States,
Cir.
(3d
1972);
438 F.
v. Cody,
Cir.
United States
(7th
1972);
2d
v. United
Woodward
1971);
States,
Cir.
(8th
v. Jack
Commonwealth
(3d
1970);
out first a factual basis There, States Su- examination that decision. the United careful overwhelming preme specifically “. . . of the Court said: Because precisely against him, neither nor a trial was Alford evidence what attorney a trial his desired. Confronted with choice between first-degree hand, plea murder, on one for and a reasonably murder, second-degree other, quite on the chose Alford thereby penalty 30-year limited the the latter and maximum to a light against plea him, his is viewed of the evidence term. When substantially negated claim of fur- his innocence and which by provided judge a means which the ther could test whether being intelligently McCarthy entered, States, see v. United validity seriously questioned. supra, (1969), its cannot 466-467 be at strong In basis view demonstrated factual for clearly expressed despite Alford’s to enter the State desire innocence, professed belief we hold that the trial 37-38, accepting error in commit constitutional it.” Id. at did not omitted) (Footnotes (Emphasis added). 167. at S. Ct. writing emphasized Court, for the Mr. Justice further White, finding importance a factual basis when noted: importance protecting “. of the the innocent . . Because guilty pleas product intelligent insuring are of free and properly choice, federal court state and decisions various caution coupled pleas accepted with claims of innocence should not be plea, see, e.g., basis there is unless Griffin factual *5 court’s the support The does record, however, existed. for the factual basis conclusion that a admit he specifically his plea, entered appellant When stat he although in situation,” ted his the “complicity from it was a bullet he not know whether ed that did appellant Furthermore, hit victim.5 his which the gun pleading by he understood that acknowledged and circumstances the facts admitted in presence, open by attorney stipulated to the Those as recited facts, and on the record. and one member appellant indicate that prosecutor, weap only persons firing the the opposing gang were Mr. One eyewitness, the shootout. gang ons during Baldy [appellant] “He saw police informed that: Long, Franklin Norris and the corner come to southwest direc southerly of times couple Street and shoot a the Berks Street. He went comer tion towards a couple shoot Baldy Franklin and Norris and saw middle of the this time times from street, more members. opposing gang direction general red Mr. when the there, Long was, “He was still little is how he found out that car arrived and been shot.” Williams, Antoinette had girl, an- report in the was the stipulation Included ap- that he police who told saw eyewitneess other then heard a scream firing high powered rifle, pellant descrip- been shot. This had say girl and someone by others, including events was corroborated tion of the App. 1378, States, D. F. U.S. C. United States, supra, 2d, (1968) ; at F. at 119 Bruce v. United Cottrell, (1967) ; A. 433 Pa. 2d 294 Commonwealth taking inquired ; (1969) has and into and until sought the conflict between the waiver trial and to resolve (Cita 91 S. Ct. Id. at n. at 167 n. 10. innocence.” claim of added). omitted) (Emphasis tions the victim so hit was mutilated that it could The bullet appeUant’s gun. from fired was determined whether not be appellant firing one who stated person 12th from rifle toward Oxford” “boys on the between “sitting step was shot was girl who and the from 12th Oxford.” guys Baldy *6 appellant the of the record satisfies us that Review which of the nature of offense with was aware he he understood that acts charged was that guilty knowing- that offense. His constituted by entered and received ly voluntarily properly trial court.
The is affirmed. judgment sentence as opinion in this joins Mr. Chief Justice Jones Pomeroy. opinion as the Mr. Justice concurring well in the result. Eagen Mr. Justice concurs Opinion by Pomeroy Concurring Mr. Justice : in of the Court. how- Because, I concur the decision I in dif- question a somewhat view ever, I com- ferent than does the add these light majority, ments. implies I opinion the Court’s may, think it
If, an Pennsylvania is rule law existing that there of a acceptance as a requires precondition which to there that the “satisfy itself I far. is basis for the think it too plea”, goes a factual Rundle, rel. v. 428 Pa. In Com. ex West A. on Pennsylvania authority relied (1968), by that the “is only we stated trial court best majority, record advised” to conduct an examination an should inter include, alia, attempt satisfy “which the defendant understands the nature of itself right trial, to a the acts sufficient jury charges, he charged the offenses is and the constitute range (Emphasis of sentences”. permissible supplied). have we laid down prophylactic rule that Nowhere of a guilty must depend of voluntariness finding “the the defendant understands a finding upon for which the offenses to constitute acts sufficient com- having admit expressly or charged”, mitted acts. such is meant of the court if the opinion
Similarly,
defendant
understanding
by
an
such
suggest
man-
the offense
sufficient
to constitute
of the acts
I
think it
again
constitution,
federal
dated
States
Court of the United
As the Supreme
error.
27 L. Ed.
Alford,
Carolina
held North
may
individual accused of crime
2d 162 (1970) “[a]n
consent
understandingly
knowingly
voluntarily,
un-
if he is
sentence even
prison
imposition
in the acts
participation
to admit his
or unable
willing
As the majority opinion Pennsylvania notes, 319. to federal Pa. E. counterpart Bule Crim. P. That rule, however does not as Bule require, does the court “shall enter a judgment not upon factual guilty unless it is satisfied that there is a In could basis for the plea”. my view, own our Buie well be amended a requirement.2 to state such Such I rule, would course, operate prospectively.3 only no any see for a justification potential invalidation of be guilty plea Pennsylvania since West accepted cause of noncompliance with the advice there given inter majority lower be courts, appears now advice. preting that concurring
Mr. Chief joins Justice Jones in this opinion. scope interrogation The of the recommended to be followed accepting already the trial at the time of con- tained in the comment to Buie which no doubt be used could appropriate as the basis an amendment to the rule itself. technique very recently have used the rule We in an analo
gous away prospectively supplementary situation in order to do with testimony probable support sworn oral as to cause to the issuance Milliken, of a search warrant Commonwealth v. Pa. disagreed (1973). (In I A. 2d 78 that case that there no con authority supported appellant’s position, stitutional and for obliged dissent). Hartage See that reason was also Com. ex rel. Hendrick, (1970). A. Pa. *8 Commonwealth v. Faulcon, Appellant.