Commonwealth v. Eddis

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Eddis

378 A.2d 968, 250 Pa. Super. 344, 1977 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2527

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 6, 1977

DocketNo. 1446

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 378 A.2d 968 (Commonwealth v. Eddis) 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. Eddis, 378 A.2d 968, 250 Pa. Super. 344, 1977 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2527 (Pa. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

VAN der VOORT, Judge:

Appellant Joseph B. Eddis was arrested on October 21, 1975, charged with rape, burglary, simple assault, and aggravated assault. Appellant appeared for trial on February 5, 1976, at which time the burglary charge was nolle prossed. A colloquy was conducted, appellant pleaded guilty to rape and aggravated assault, and the lower court accepted the pleas and placed appellant on probation for five years. Appellant filed a petition to withdraw his guilty plea,¹ which was denied on March 16, 1976. Appeal was then taken to our court.

Appellant argues that his guilty plea was not knowingly and intelligently entered because the lower court neglected to advise him of the elements of the crimes with which he was charged.² We agree. The law in this Commonwealth has been that a defendant must be advised of the nature and elements of the charges against him. Commonwealth v. Minor, 467 Pa. 230, 356 A.2d 346 (1976); Common[346]*346wealth v. Dixon, 237 Pa.Super. 525, 352 A.2d 101 (1975); Commonwealth v. Kearse, 233 Pa.Super. 489, 334 A.2d 720 (1975). In the case before us, appellant was asked the following question: “You understand that you are in court today for trial on the charges of rape, burglary, simple assault, and aggravated assault; do you understand that?” Appellant indicated that he understood, and no mention was made at all of the elements of those crimes. This single question merely naming the crimes was clearly insufficient and requires a reversal.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

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

VAN der VOORT, Judge:

Appellant Joseph B. Eddis was arrested on October 21, 1975, charged with rape, burglary, simple assault, and aggravated assault. Appellant appeared for trial on February 5, 1976, at which time the burglary charge was nolle prossed. A colloquy was conducted, appellant pleaded guilty to rape and aggravated assault, and the lower court accepted the pleas and placed appellant on probation for five years. Appellant filed a petition to withdraw his guilty plea,¹ which was denied on March 16, 1976. Appeal was then taken to our court.

Appellant argues that his guilty plea was not knowingly and intelligently entered because the lower court neglected to advise him of the elements of the crimes with which he was charged.² We agree. The law in this Commonwealth has been that a defendant must be advised of the nature and elements of the charges against him. Commonwealth v. Minor, 467 Pa. 230, 356 A.2d 346 (1976); Common[346]*346wealth v. Dixon, 237 Pa.Super. 525, 352 A.2d 101 (1975); Commonwealth v. Kearse, 233 Pa.Super. 489, 334 A.2d 720 (1975). In the case before us, appellant was asked the following question: “You understand that you are in court today for trial on the charges of rape, burglary, simple assault, and aggravated assault; do you understand that?” Appellant indicated that he understood, and no mention was made at all of the elements of those crimes. This single question merely naming the crimes was clearly insufficient and requires a reversal.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

378 A.2d 968, 250 Pa. Super. 344, 1977 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-eddis-pasuperct-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack