Title: Com v. Robert Gunter, Aplt (Concurring Opinion)

State: pennsylvania

Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Document:

[J-31-2001; MO - ZAPPALA, J.] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. ROBERT E. GUNTER, Appellant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 84 MAP 2000 Appeal from the Order of Superior Court entered December 30, 1999, at 1032 HBG 1997 affirming the Order of the Centre County Court of Common Pleas entered on September 20, 1997, at No. 1997-865 SUBMITTED: January 17, 2001 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE NIGRO DECIDED: MAY 22, 2001 I concur in the result reached by the majority that Appellant did not knowingly and freely enter his nolo contendere plea and, therefore, that he should be allowed to withdraw the plea. I write separately, however, because, unlike the majority, I do not believe that the fact that some of the written colloquy questions refer to a plea of “guilty” as opposed to “nolo contendere” should be a consideration in deciding whether Appellant may withdraw his plea.1 I would hold that under the circumstances of this case, Appellant’s plea was not 1 A plea of nolo contendere has the exact same effect as a plea of guilty. Commonwealth v. Nelson, 666 A.2d 714, 717 (Pa. Super. 1995), allocatur denied, 674 A.2d 1069 (Pa. 1996). Thus, whether a defendant pleads guilty or nolo contendere, the defendant is agreeing to forgo a trial, be convicted of a crime, and be sentenced accordingly. The (continued…) [J-31-2001; MO - ZAPPALA, J.] 2 knowingly and freely entered into due to the lack of any on-the-record colloquy, regardless of the sufficiency of the written colloquy. (…continued) practical difference between the pleas is that a defendant need not admit to any guilt in a nolo contendere plea.