[J-72B-2014] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT CASTILLE, C.J., SAYLOR, EAKIN, BAER, TODD, MCCAFFER Y, STEVENS, JJ.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellant

v.

JAMES JOHN HVIZDA, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 6 MAP 2014 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court at No. 2695 EDA 2012 dated 6/25/13 which vacated and remanded the judgment of sentence of the Chester County Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, at No. CP-15-CR-0001350-2012 dated 8/27/12

ARGUED : September 10, 2014

OPINION

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE SAYLOR 1 DECIDED: June 15, 2015

The issue presented concerns whether a common pleas court was required to permit withdrawal of a guilty plea, upon the defend ant-appellee’s assertion of innocence. The appeal is a companion case with Commonwealth v. Carrasquillo , ___ Pa. ___, ___ A.3d ___ (2015). Appellee stabbed his estranged wife, Kimberly, to de ath. He immediately surrendered to police and confessed. Subsequently, he pl ed guilty to first-degree murder and possession of an instrument of crime. In excha nge for the plea, the

1 This matter was reassigned to this author.[J-72B-2014] - 2

Commonwealth was to recommend that Appellee would rece ive the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for first-degree murder a nd a consecutive term of incarceration pertaining to the possessory offense. Just over two months later, when Appellee appeared f or sentencing, he advised the common pleas court that he wished to withdraw his p lea, stating: “I’m here to maintain my innocence in the charge of murder in the first degree.” N.T., July 9, 2012, at 3. His counsel explained:

There needs to be a fair and just reason [in support o f a motion to withdraw a plea]. As stated previously in re sponse to Your Honor’s inquiry, his fair and just reason is th at he maintains his innocence on the charge of first degree m urder and possessing an instrument of crime. Id. at 6. The court listed the matter for hearing. At the hearing, Appellee again stated that he was in nocent, but he offered no evidence. The Commonwealth presented audiotapes of Ap pellee’s telephone conversations from prison, in which he stated that, altho ugh he “did it” and knew that he “deserve[d] what [he was] gonna get,” he wished to sta nd trial to “get some of the story out.” N.T., Aug. 20, 2012, at 10-11. On this basis, and more generally, the Commonwealth took the position that Appellee’s assertion of innocence was implausible and insincere. The common pleas court denied Appellee’s motion, appl ying the standard derived from Commonwealth v. Forbes , 450 Pa. 185, 299 A.2d 268 (1973), which requires a court to accept a presentence withdrawal of a plea upon presentation of a fair-and-just reason, and in the absence of substantia l prejudice to the Commonwealth. See id. at 191, 299 A.2d at 271. The court relied on Commonwealth v. Tennison , 969 A.2d 572 (Pa. Super. 2009), for the proposition tha t it had the ability to adjudge the sincerity of the innocence claim in the assessment of fair ness and justice. See[J-72B-2014] - 3

Commonwealth v. Hvizda , No. 1350-2012, slip op. at 2-3 (C.P. Chester Aug. 22, 2012) (citing Tennison , 969 A.2d at 573). According to the common pleas cou rt, the Commonwealth had “presented compelling and unique evi dence to establish [Appellee’s] bald assertion of innocence was at best pre textual and an attempt to manipulate the system.” Id. at 3. After sentencing ensued in accordance with the plea agr eement, Appellee lodged an appeal. In its brief, the Commonwealth argued fo r the first time that the Forbes standard did not govern Appellee’s motion. Rather, t he Commonwealth observed, in Commonwealth v. Lesko , 502 Pa. 511, 467 A.2d 307 (1983), this Court had su bstituted a requirement that a defendant subject to a mandator y life sentence should establish a manifest injustice to support presentence plea withdraw al. See id. at 517, 467 A.2d at 310. In a divided, memorandum decision, the Superior Cour t vacated the common pleas court’s ruling and instructed that court to accept t he plea withdrawal. The majority related that, in the en banc decision in Commonwealth v. Katonka , 33 A.3d 44 (Pa. Super. 2011), the intermediate court had explained that Tennison was limited to its facts and that credibility assessments relative to a defendant’ s claim of innocence were impermissible. See id. at 49-50. Accordingly, the majority determined that the common pleas court should have accepted Appellee’s assertion of innocence as a fair-and-just reason in support of withdrawal. The majority also declined the Commonwealth’s invitat ion to apply Lesko . In this regard, it distinguished the case on several grounds, in cluding because Appellee was not only required to receive a life sentence for first -degree murder but was also subject to a term of incarceration for his possessory offense, and since Appellee was subject to fines, costs, and restitutions in the discretion of the sen tencing court.[J-72B-2014] - 4

Then-President Judge Stevens dissented, essentially on th e basis of the common pleas court’s reasoning. The Commonwealth lodged a petition for allowance of appeal, which we accepted to exercise plenary review over the legal issues presented. The Commonwealth first argues that Lesko is controlling and required the Superior Court to apply a manifest injustice standard. In the alternative, the Commonwealth contends that Katonka ’s proscription against credibility assessments relative to innocence claims does not fairly derive fro m the decisions of this Court. Appellee finds Lesko to be outdated, poorly reasoned, difficult to apply, and factually distinguishable. In terms of the appropriate application of the Forbes standard, Appellee maintains, consistent with Superior Court prec edent, that his bare assertion of innocence is enough to establish a fair-and-just reason s upporting presentence withdrawal of a plea. Initially, we agree with Appellee that the Lesko decision is incompletely reasoned on the relevant point and should not remain controlli ng authority. In Lesko , this Court recognized the prevailing liberal standard for present ence withdrawal as established in Forbes

. See Lesko , 502 Pa. at 517, 467 A.2d at 310. The Court observ ed, however, that the standard for post-sentence withdrawal is a stri ngent one, requiring the defendant to establish manifest injustice. The remainde r of the Lesko Court’s reasoning is as follows:

The basis for the difference between these two standard s is

clear. Allowing an accused to withdraw his guilty plea a fter imposition of sentence requires a stricter standard to pre vent defendants from using a guilty plea as a tool for prev iewing the sentencing by the court. Such a misuse does not occ ur when withdrawing a guilty plea prior to sentencing.[J-72B-2014] - 5 The lower court applied the “manifest injustice” standar d, reasoning that the [a]ppellant was pre-advised of the only possible sentence. Therefore, the [a]ppellant’s petiti on was akin to a post-sentencing petition. Because the [a]ppe llant was well aware of the only possible sentence imposable for the crime to which he pled guilty, we find no error i n applying the “manifest injustice” standard. In any event, appl ying the “fair and just reason” standard will not give the App ellant the requested relief. Id. (emphasis in original). Unfortunately, the Lesko Court did not discuss all of the policies underlying the Forbes rule. Indeed, the main reason the Court has repeat edly invoked in support of the liberal allowance of presentence withdrawal of ple as is to safeguard defendants’ trial rights. See, e.g. , Commonwealth v. Santos , 450 Pa. 492, 494-95, 301 A.2d 829, 830 (1973) (“ [S]ince guilty pleas involve the simultaneous waiver of so m any constitutional rights , we have recently emphasized ‘that a request [to with draw] made before sentencing . . . should be liberally allowed.’” (quoti ng Forbes , 450 Pa. at 190, 299 A.2d at 271 (emphasis added; footnote omitted))). Moreove r, Lesko ’s rationale centered on “sentence-previewing” is strained. While Lesko correctly recognized that a defendant pleading guilty to an offense triggering a mandatory life sentence has no need to preview the sentencing result (as he already knows that he will receive a life sentence at the time the plea is accepted), Lesko used this premise to reach the opposite conclusion of that to which it logically leads. Contrary to the Lesko Court’s reasoning, if preventing previewing were the only reason supporting implementation of an elevated standard, there would be no reason to apply the higher standard at all to a defendant who has pled guilty to an offense triggering a mandat ory life sentence. 2 Lesko ,

2 Of course, there are other justifications for the ele vated standard governing postsentence withdrawal motions, also not recognized in Lesko

. See, e.g. , Commonwealth v. Gunter

, 565 Pa. 79, 84, 771 A.2d 767, 771 (2001) (“The di fferent treatment of pre- (Mcontinued)[J-72B-2014] - 6

however, upended this logic to conclude that the liber al standard should not apply in the first instance, again, without any acknowledgement of th e driving justification for liberality in the presentence period, i.e. , safeguarding defendants’ trial rights. We also agree with Appellee that the Lesko approach is problematic in its application, as it yields distinctions and variations such a s are reflected in the opinion of the Superior Court majority here. Accordingly, while we recognize the importance of adhering to precedent, we disapprove Lesko ’s idiosyncratic approach to presentence withdrawal. See generally Ayala v. Phila. Bd. of Pub. Ed. , 453 Pa. 584, 606, 305 A.2d 877, 888 (1973) (“[T]he doctrine of stare decisis is not a vehicle for perpetuating error, but rather a legal concept which responds to the demand s of justice and, thus, permits the orderly growth processes of the law to flourish.”). In the companion case of Carrasquillo , however, we have determined that a bare assertion of innocence – such as Appellee provided as the basis for withdrawing his guilty plea – is not, in and of itself a sufficient reason to require a court to grant such a request. See Carrasquillo , ___ Pa. at ___, ___ A.3d at ___. Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth more fully in that case, the common pl eas court did not err in denying Appellee’s withdrawal motion. The order of the Superior Court is reversed, and the matter is remanded for reinstatement of the judgment of sentence.

Former Chief Justice Castille and former Justice McCaffer y did not participate in the decision of this case.

(continuedM) and postsentence motions reflects the tension in our jur isprudence between the individual’s fundamental right to a trial and the ne ed for finality in the proceedings.”).[J-72B-2014] - 7

Messrs. Justice Eakin and Baer, Madame Justice Todd and Mr. Justice Stevens join the opinion. Mr. Justice Stevens files a concurring opinion.