*1 Pennsylvania COMMONWEALTH RODGERS, Appellant. Floyd Pennsylvania. Supreme Court of 20, 1975. Oct. Submitted 29, 1976. Decided Jan. *2 appellant. Tabas, Philadelphia,
Allan M. Fitzpatrick, Atty., Gold- Steven H. Emmett Dist. F. Philadelphia, Appeals Div., blatt, Atty., Chief, Asst. Dist. appellee. O’BRIEN, JONES, EAGEN, ROB- J., Before and C. MANDERINO, POMEROY, ERTS, JJ. NIX and THE COURT OPINION OF ROBERTS, Justice. guilty Rodgers plea Floyd entered manslaughter voluntary on March charge
to a appeal1 he bargain. 1973, pursuant plea to a On alleging guilty plea, challenges validity in the of deficiencies involuntarily entered because was accepted by place colloquy which took before his not reflect a volun colloquy court.2 If the does trial to re state law tary plea, we are bound federal We for a new trial.3 verse the and remand conviction one cru colloquy deficient find the in this case judgment remand aspect, cial vacate the of sentence for a new trial. valid requirement for a
The constitutional hearing is that the record of showing un the defendant contain an affirmative ... connotes and derstands “what understanding particular cases, consequences.” In *3 understanding what (1) has been held to an include: they specific admitting and whether acts the defendant is understanding charged (2) 5; make out the an crime put to rights given up choosing the state not to 31, 1970, July Appellate Act of Act of 1. See Court Jurisdiction 1970, 673, (Sup.1975). II, 211.202(1) 202(1), § § P.L. P.S. art. 319(a): 2. See Pa.R.Crim.P. or, guilty, “(a) plead guilty, Generally. may not A defendant may court, judge The with the consent of the nolo contendere. accept accept unless guilty, not it refuse to he a and shall plea is inquiry defendant determines after of the inquiry shall voluntarily understanding^ and tendered. Such appear on the record.” 1709, Alabama, Boykin 238, 23 L.Ed.2d 3. See 89 S.Ct. 395 U.S. 198, Ingram, 311, Belgrave, A.2d 448 (1971). Alabama, Boykin 4. 89 S.Ct. 395 U.S. (1969). L.Ed.2d “ aof 5. elements ‘Because a an of all the admission voluntary charge, truly formal unless criminal cannot be to possesses understanding in relation defendant the law an ” the facts.’ 1709, 1712, Alabama, Boykin 89 S.Ct. U.S. 243 n. States, 394 McCarthy (1969), quoting L.Ed.2d 274 United n. 5 459, U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed.2d understanding
proof6; and an of the nature and ex- punishment imposed tent of crime committing.7 Obviously, which the defendant admits list, is not an all inclusive because the indicia knowing vary voluntary, and will circumstances individual case. he claims he in when acted self-defense shot the his sister Appellant, decedent. The facts are: walking public and two male in friends were on a street Philadelphia up appellant and when the decedent came to got your going said: Friday night, “We I am cousin get you Appellant gave following next.” police: walking
“I said OK me came towards [decedent] pocket. and had his left hand on his back I could see sticking pocket. the handle aof knife out his back got length When he about arms from me he took a pocket swung knife from his me back and he at two times, face, I moved to the side. We were face my had pants pocket a 25 automatic left front pulled my put my right it out with left it in hand and hand and fired once at [decedent].
Q. [by police] you How far from were [decedent] you when fired?
A. away.” About four feet During judge colloquy, the trial at- tempted explore surrounding the facts re- *4 action to the attack.
“THE Why you COURT: did kill ? [the decedent] Boykin Alabama, 238, 242-44, 6. v. 395 U.S. 89 S.Ct. 1711- 39, 40, (1969); 23 L.Ed.2d 274 Enty, Commonwealth Pa. 926, 927, denied, 271 A.2d cert. U.S. S.Ct. 28 L. Rundle, Ed.2d 656 Commonwealth ex West Pa. rel. 102, 105-06, A.2d supra 7. Sources cited note 6. Appellant’s
8. police part guilty was made plea hearing record. Why He I kill ? “THE DEFENDANT: did [him] kill tried to me. you kill with
“THE And tried to COURT: when he knife, you punch. beat him to the Something “THE DEFENDANT: like that. , response your when
“THE COURT: And what was you you he went after did feel? a knife? How Really “THE DEFENDANT: How did I feel? knife, thought guy when he came me with a crazy, something wrong with him. you “THE what COURT: So did do? myself Well, protected
“THE DEFENDANT: I shot him. right.
“THE COURT: All Does Commonwealth any questions have further ?” have often is ac
We held that when a companied by the a de assertion of facts which make out accepted charged, plea may fense to the crimes not be discrepancy unless the must The defendant resolved. aware, aware, and the record must show that he that his defense cannot he enters a be considered when guilty plea. affirmatively The record must demonstrate op pleading guilty he knows he waives portunity to assert establish defense facts As in Com self-defense. Mr. Justice stated O’Brien monwealth Blackman, 61, 64-65, Pa. (1971): though have stated that where the defendant,
“[W]e
pleading guilty, testifies to what amounts to a com-
plete
defense to
charged,
the crime
can-
knowing
not be a
act and should not be
accepted.
Sampson,
285 A.2d
Shank,
Commonwealth
;
Pa.
(1970).”
In Nix, writing (1973), Mr. Justice Court, stated: guilty plea not know- “It that a is well established ap- ing does not where the defendant plea. preciate consequences of that the nature and that his . If the not understand . . defendant does guilty plea possibility acquittal, then waives all accepted. . It is for void and cannot . . ‘ defendant this reason that we have said: should [A] “guilty” plead not be one of his allowed to from side guilty” mouth “not from other.’ Commonwealth (1970).” appellant
Here the record does not show that guilty plea knew that his his defense. At waived guilty plea hearing that he shot the decedent he asserted unprovoked only protect following himself decedent’s apparent attack with assertion a knife. Given explored self-defense, the trial court should have completely, facts more whether or at least determined appellant asserting he knew a defense and whether guilty. by pleading that he The ab waived the defense appellant any sence from the record indication was aware of renders these effects of pla involuntary. unknowing, unintelligent and
Judgment reversed, of sentence case remanded new trial. concurring opinion,
POMEROY, J., in which filed a MANDERINO, J., joins.
POMEROY,
(concurring).
Justice
grant
I concur in
the record
of a new trial because
judge accepted appellant’s
discloses that
the trial
voluntary manslaughter
without sufficient
exploration
shooting
account of his
appellant
to determine whether
a tenable
victim
had
and,
so,
claim of self-defense
whether he intended
if
*6
compare
that
Commonwealth
waive
See and
claim.
Common
Robinson,
316,
(1973);
452 Pa.
order to comment the of this peal. brought appeal directly has from the this
judgment
imposed following
guilty.
of
plea
sentence
his
of
recently said,
We have but
and believe with
rea-
sound
son,
challenge
validity
guilty plea
a
to the
of a
initially
by
should be
addressed to the trial court
means
petition
plea.
a
to
withdraw the
Lee,
Common-
Pa.
333 A.2d
750n.
Zakrzewski,
wealth
460 Pa.
333 A.2d
900 n.
Starr,
(1973).
Project
See American Bar Association
on
Relating
Standards
Justice,
for Criminal
to
Standards
Guilty
(Approved
Pleas of
1968).
Draft,
2.1
Such a
§
petition,
post-trial
like a
motion,
the trial court
enables
in the
pass upon
first
instance to
the defendant’s claim
of error.
In the
evidentiary hearing
event that an
is
deemed necessary in
order
resolve
to
the issues raised
defendant,
the
holding
hearing
the
of such a
will have
expedited.
been
grants
If the trial court
relief either
with or
taking
without
evidence,
appeal
the
an
have
If,
been
however,
appeal
avoided.
an
is taken from
either the
granting
or
petition
denial
the
to with-
draw,
appellate
the
court will have the benefit of a lower
opinion
court
setting
grounds upon
forth the
which its
decision was made. See Rule
the
of this
Rules
Thus,
Court.
requirement
challenge
the
that a
to a
accepted
the
the
be initiated in
court
orderly
regard
purposes
to the
serves the same
require-
operation
appellate process
as does
in
post-verdict
cases which
ment
motions be
in
filed
Carter,
trial is had.
full
See Commonwealth
court,
to
trial
It
fairer
It is these has reasons that Court nor has, Court should and it is for these reasons that the mally the trial court a as remand case such petition filing by appellant of withdraw challenge to guilty. Because, however, *7 solely adequacy on-the- is directed colloquy appeal may be decided record therefore economy judicial us, on the interests of record before juncture. I can would not be served a remand at reaching the acquiesce in the action of the Court thus trial court notwithstanding that the this case, merits of own opportunity to deprived discover has been Common proper take remedial action. See mistake and Lee, 750n. wealth opinion. concurring J., joins MANDERINO, in this