Case Name: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Robert RENO, Appellant
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1982-08-13
Citations: 303 Pa. Super. 166
Docket Number: No. 943
Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Robert RENO, Appellant.
Judges: Before SPAETH, WICKERSHAM and LIPEZ, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 303
Pages: 166–176

Head Matter:
449 A.2d 630
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Robert RENO, Appellant.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Submitted Nov. 12, 1980.
Filed Aug. 13, 1982.
Norman A. Levine, New Castle, for appellant.
Donald E. Williams, District Attorney, New Castle, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Before SPAETH, WICKERSHAM and LIPEZ, JJ.

Opinion:
SPAETH, Judge:
This is an appeal from an order denying a petition to withdraw a guilty plea. Appellant argues that the petition should have been granted because his guilty plea colloquy was deficient in several respects. We agree, and therefore reverse.
Appellant had been charged with rape and was tried in February 1976. The trial ended on February 18, 1976, in a hung jury. On February 23, 1976, appellant, pursuant to a plea bargain, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault.
Appellant argues, Appellant's Brief at 9-10, and the Commonwealth admits, Appellee's Brief at 11, that during the colloquy he was not informed of his right to file a petition to withdraw his guilty plea prior to sentencing or of his appellate rights. When the lower court has failed to inform the defendant of his right to file a' petition to withdraw a guilty plea, and the consequences of a failure to do so, an invalid waiver of the right to jury trial is conclusively inferred. Commonwealth v. McGarry, 280 Pa.Superi- or Ct. 527, 529 n.2, 421 A.2d 847, 848 n. 2 (1980) (citing cases). And see, Commonwealth v. Vigue, 279 Pa.Superior Ct. 46, 420 A.2d 736 (1980).
The colloquy was further deficient in that the lower court did not ascertain whether there was a factual basis for the guilty plea. Commonwealth v. Stolle, 254 Pa.Superior Ct. 483, 386 A.2d 53 (1978); Comment, Pa.R.Crim.P. 319. The Commonwealth admits this defect, too, Appellee's Brief at 8-9, but argues that:
It was therefore made clear to the defendant although such clarity does not appear in the plea hearing record because reference was made to a prior record not recited of the nature of the charge and acts of which he was being asked to enter a plea.
Id.
This argument echoes the lower court's holding that "[d]ue to the evidence produced at trial the previous week, it was clear that a factual basis for the plea was present and the plea was therefore accepted." Slip op. at 3. We are unable to subscribe to this reasoning, for Pa.R.Crim.P. 319 makes inquiry into the factual basis for the plea mandatory at the colloquy. Commonwealth v. Willis, 471 Pa. 50, 369 A.2d 1189 (1978). Moreover, the evidence that both the lower court and the Commonwealth refer to as having been produced at the previous trial is not of record. We therefore cannot give it any effect; this rule applies whether the evidence in question is recited in a brief, Marine Bank v. Huhta, 279 Pa.Superior Ct. 130, 420 A.2d 1066 (1980), or in the opinion of the lower court, In re Custody of Frank, 283 Pa.Superior Ct. 229, 423 A.2d 1229 (1980).
Finally, the colloquy was deficient in that the lower court did not inform appellant that the members of the jury had to be unanimous in their decision. This omission was reversible error. Commonwealth v. Dello Buono, 271 Pa.Superior Ct. 572, 414 A.2d 631 (1979); Commonwealth v. Carl, 267 Pa.Superior Ct. 156, 406 A.2d 566 (1979); Commonwealth v. Coxson, 262 Pa. Superior Ct. 14, 396 A.2d 460 (1978).
Given these several deficiencies in the colloquy, we conclude that appellant was entitled to withdraw his plea.
Reversed.
WICKERSHAM, J., files a dissenting opinion.
. Appellant did not appear on the date he was scheduled to be sentenced, July 26, 1976. He was later found and on October 5, 1979, was sentenced to two to five years in prison. In the meantime, he had sustained a spinal cord injury in a fall from a roof, which rendered him a paraplegic. Appellant argues that his sentence was excessive in view of his physical condition. We do not reach this issue. Commonwealth v. Paige, 287 Pa.Superior Ct. 133, 142 n.3, 429 A.2d 1135, 1140 n. 3 (1981).