Commonwealth v. Boofer

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Boofer

375 A.2d 173, 248 Pa. Super. 431, 1977 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1945

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 29, 1977

Docket174

StatusPublished

Cited by24 cases

This text of 375 A.2d 173 (Commonwealth v. Boofer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Boofer, 375 A.2d 173, 248 Pa. Super. 431, 1977 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1945 (Pa. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

SPAETH, Judge:

This appeal is from an order denying appellant’s request to withdraw his guilty plea.

Rule 320 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that “[a]t any time before sentence, the court may, in its discretion, permit or direct a plea of guilty to be withdrawn and a plea of not guilty substituted.” The discretion thus given the court is not, however, unfettered. Since a plea of guilty involves the waiver of constitutional rights guaranteed an accused, in exercising its discretion the court should be liberal. Commonwealth v. Woods, 452 Pa. 546, 307 A.2d 880 (1973); Commonwealth v. Forbes, 450 Pa. 185, 299 A.2d 268 (1973); Commonwealth v. Santos, 450 Pa. 492, 301 A.2d 829 (1973).

Thus, in determining whether to grant a presentence motion for withdrawal of a guilty plea, ‘the test to be applied by the trial courts is fairness and justice.’ United States v. Stayton, [408 F.2d 559 (3d Cir. 1969)] . at 561. If the trial court finds ‘any fair and just reason,’ withdrawal of the plea before sentence should be freely permitted, unless the prosecution has been ‘substantially prejudiced.’ ABA Standards Relating to Pleas of Guilty *433 [ABA Project on Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to Pleas of Guilty § 2.1 (Approved Draft 1968)] .

Commonwealth v. Forbes, supra, 450 Pa. at 191, 299 A.2d at 271.

Of these considerations, the critical one is the presence or lack of prejudice to the Commonwealth. Commonwealth v. McLaughlin, 469 Pa. 407, 366 A.2d 238 (1976).

Here the Commonwealth does not take issue with appellant’s contention that no prejudice to the prosecution will result from withdrawal of the plea. Further, appellant supports his request for withdrawal by asserting his innocence. An assertion of innocence is a “fair and just reason” for permitting withdrawal of a guilty plea. Commonwealth v. Woods, supra; Commonwealth v. Forbes, supra. Under these circumstances, the lower court’s denial of the request for withdrawal was an abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Morales, 452 Pa. 53, 305 A.2d 11 (1973).

The judgment of sentence is reversed; the record is remanded with instructions to permit appellant to withdraw his guilty plea.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SPAETH, Judge:

This appeal is from an order denying appellant’s request to withdraw his guilty plea.

Rule 320 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that “[a]t any time before sentence, the court may, in its discretion, permit or direct a plea of guilty to be withdrawn and a plea of not guilty substituted.” The discretion thus given the court is not, however, unfettered. Since a plea of guilty involves the waiver of constitutional rights guaranteed an accused, in exercising its discretion the court should be liberal. Commonwealth v. Woods, 452 Pa. 546, 307 A.2d 880 (1973); Commonwealth v. Forbes, 450 Pa. 185, 299 A.2d 268 (1973); Commonwealth v. Santos, 450 Pa. 492, 301 A.2d 829 (1973).

Thus, in determining whether to grant a presentence motion for withdrawal of a guilty plea, ‘the test to be applied by the trial courts is fairness and justice.’ United States v. Stayton, [408 F.2d 559 (3d Cir. 1969)] . at 561. If the trial court finds ‘any fair and just reason,’ withdrawal of the plea before sentence should be freely permitted, unless the prosecution has been ‘substantially prejudiced.’ ABA Standards Relating to Pleas of Guilty *433 [ABA Project on Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to Pleas of Guilty § 2.1 (Approved Draft 1968)] .

Commonwealth v. Forbes, supra, 450 Pa. at 191, 299 A.2d at 271.

Of these considerations, the critical one is the presence or lack of prejudice to the Commonwealth. Commonwealth v. McLaughlin, 469 Pa. 407, 366 A.2d 238 (1976).

Here the Commonwealth does not take issue with appellant’s contention that no prejudice to the prosecution will result from withdrawal of the plea. Further, appellant supports his request for withdrawal by asserting his innocence. An assertion of innocence is a “fair and just reason” for permitting withdrawal of a guilty plea. Commonwealth v. Woods, supra; Commonwealth v. Forbes, supra. Under these circumstances, the lower court’s denial of the request for withdrawal was an abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Morales, 452 Pa. 53, 305 A.2d 11 (1973).

The judgment of sentence is reversed; the record is remanded with instructions to permit appellant to withdraw his guilty plea.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

375 A.2d 173, 248 Pa. Super. 431, 1977 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1945, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-boofer-pasuperct-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack