J-S59039-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 

 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Appellee 

 v. 

WILLIAM F. MCKNIGHT, 

 Appellant 

 

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

: PENNSYLVANIA 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: No. 1118 EDA 2014 

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 27, 2014, 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Wayne County, 

Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-64-CR-0000285-2013 

BEFORE: SHOGAN, LAZARUS and STRASSBURGER*, JJ. 

MEMORANDUM BY: STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED OCTOBER 06, 2014 

William F. McKnight (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of 

sentence entered March 27, 2014, following his conviction for prohibited 

offensive weapons.1 We affirm. 

The trial court outlined the relevant factual and procedural history of 

this case as follows. 

On August 6, 2013, [Appellant] was charged with one (1) 

count of Persons Not to Possess, Use, Firearms, Etc., a second 

degree felony [arising from an incident where he threatened the 

neighbors of his paramour, Denise Cassano, with multiple 

firearms.] Attorney Richard Henry (hereinafter “Attorney 

Henry”) was appointed as [Appellant’s] public defender. The 

charge stemmed from the service of a search warrant for 

handguns, rifles, and/or shotguns at the [home of Cassano, 

where Appellant] was residing. 

 

1

 18 Pa.C.S. § 908(a). 
J-S59039-14

-2- 

[A pretrial motion in limine was filed, wherein Appellant 

challenged the validity of the search warrant. Cassano testified 

on Appellant’s behalf and declared her ownership of the firearms 

alleged to have been possessed by Appellant during the incident. 

Appellant’s motion was denied following a hearing in December 

12, 2013.] 

Prior to trial, [Appellant] advised Attorney Henry that he 

wished to proceed pro se in the matter due to their differences in 

opinion on how the case should be handled. On January 7, 2014, 

[Appellant] filed a Motion to Dismiss Court Appointed Counsel 

and to Proceed Pro Se. The [t]rial [c]ourt issued an order 

granting the motion. Attorney Henry was then appointed as 

stand-by counsel. 

[Appellant’s] case was set to go to trial during the January 

2014 trial term. On January 13, 2014, on the morning of trial, 

plea negotiations between the Commonwealth and stand-by 

counsel for [Appellant] occurred. The Commonwealth amended 

the Information to include the charge of Make/Repair/Sell Etc. 

Offensive Weapons, a first degree misdemeanor, to which 

[Appellant] pled guilty. The [t]rial [c]ourt scheduled sentencing 

for March 27, 2014. One month prior to sentencing, [Appellant] 

filed a Motion to Withdraw Plea of Guilty. The [t]rial [c]ourt 

heard argument on the motion on the date set for sentencing. 

[Appellant’s] Motion to Withdraw Plea of Guilty was denied, and 

[Appellant] was sentenced to undergo incarceration in a state 

correctional institut[ion] for a period of not less than eighteen 

(18) months nor more than forty-two (42) months. 

Trial Court Opinion, 6/4/2014, at 1-2.

This timely appeal followed. The trial court did not direct Appellant to 

file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, and none was 

filed. Nonetheless, the trial court issued a 1925(a) opinion based upon the 

issues raised by Appellant in his notice of appeal. Appellant now asks this 

Court to consider whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to 

withdraw his guilty plea. Appellant’s Brief at 4. 
J-S59039-14

-3- 

We begin by noting that “[a] trial court’s decision regarding whether to 

permit a guilty plea to be withdrawn should not be upset absent an abuse of 

discretion.” Commonwealth v. Pardo, 35 A.3d 1222, 1227 (Pa. Super. 

2011) (quotation omitted). 

 Rule of Criminal Procedure 591 provides, in relevant part, as follows: 

“At any time before the imposition of sentence, the court may, in its 

discretion, permit, upon motion of the defendant, or direct, sua sponte, the 

withdrawal of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere and the substitution of a 

plea of not guilty.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 591(A). The two-part test for determining if 

withdrawal should be permitted is well-established: “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.’” 

Commonwealth v. Forbes, 299 A.2d 268, 271 (Pa. 1973). 

Our jurisprudence has stressed that the individual’s 

fundamental right to a trial requires a liberal granting of presentence motions to withdraw guilty plea. Yet, it has also 

recognized there is no absolute right to a pre-sentence 

withdrawal of a plea, and has issued clear holdings that the 

denial of such a motion is proper where the evidence before the 

court belies the reason offered. See Commonwealth v. 

Michael, 562 Pa. 356, 755 A.2d 1274 (2000) (holding presentence motion properly denied where defendant’s claims of 

incompetency at time of guilty plea and difficulty in

communicating with counsel were not supported by record). 

Commonwealth v. Tennison, 969 A.2d 572, 578 (Pa. Super. 2009). 

Further, we have held that “an assertion of innocence may constitute a fair 
J-S59039-14

-4- 

and just reason for the pre-sentence withdrawal of a guilty plea.” 

Commonwealth v. Miller, 639 A.2d 815, 816–817 (Pa. Super. 1994). 

Instantly, in the habeas corpus petition attached to his motion to 

withdraw, Appellant declared himself an “innocent petitioner” and premised 

his request to withdraw on his belief that certain charging documents were 

falsified by the police. See Pro Se Pre-Trail [sic] Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus, 2/24/2014. Specifically, Appellant’s handwritten notes appear to 

indicate that he believes the search warrant’s affidavit of probable cause is 

invalid for lack of a warrant control number or a docket number. See 

Exhibits to Pro Se Pre Trail [sic] Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 

2/24/2014. Moreover, Appellant alleges that certain witness statements are 

missing from one copy of the affidavit.2Id. Appellant also takes issue with 

what appears to be an incomplete draft of the search warrant, claiming it is 

invalid for lack of an affiant signature or warrant number. These documents 

were the subject of Appellant’s pretrial motion in limine. 

At the hearing on Appellant’s motion to withdraw guilty plea the 

following exchange occurred, in relevant part: 

The Court: So, you want to withdraw your guilty plea. Why is it 

that you want to withdraw your guilty plea sir? 

 

2

 Appellant attached to his petition what appear to be duplicate draft copies 

of the affidavit of probable cause attached to the application for a search 

warrant. He noted that in certain of these affidavits the testimony of 

witness Kim Tarquini has been deleted. See Exhibits to Pro Se Pre Trail [sic] 

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 2/24/2014. 
J-S59039-14

-5- 

[Appellant]: I found falsified documents by the police, your 

honor, which is now a matter of a petition in the Federal District 

Court[.] 

The Court: And what specifically...

[Appellant]: The issues? 

The Court: Are the reports you found to be, I’ll use the word, 

inaccurate? 

[Appellant]: ... As far as I am concerned they were falsified by 

the Lehigh Township Police[.] 

N.T., 3/27/2014, at 4, 5. 

The trial court did not find Appellant’s reasoning compelling, stating 

that Appellant’s “bald allegations of falsified reports [are not] a fair and just 

reason to grant” his motion. Trial Court Opinion, 6/4/2014, at 4. We agree. 

Appellant’s tangential assertion of innocence, based upon issues with 

the apparently incomplete rough drafts of the affidavit of probable cause and 

search warrant, is not a fair and just reason to grant his request for a 

withdrawal. Moreover, as the trial court pointed out, Appellant “avoided 

going to jury trial by pleading guilty [to a reduced charge] on the morning 

[of trial] when all the jurors were gathered.” N.T., 3/27/2014, at 5. 

Although we reiterate that pre-sentence requests to withdraw a guilty plea 

should be liberally granted, we find no error in the instant case. 

Commonwealth v. Walker, 26 A.3d 525 (Pa. Super. 2011) (holding 

defendant’s speculation that videotape exists to exonerate him was not “fair 
J-S59039-14

-6- 

and just” reason to permit him to withdraw plea, especially in light of fact 

that he twice pled guilty, and never expressly asserted innocence).

Thus, because the court did not abuse its discretion in determining that 

there was no “fair and just” reason to grant Appellant’s motion to withdraw 

his plea, we affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judge Shogan joins the memorandum. 

Judge Lazarus concurs in the result. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 10/6/2014