Opinion ID: 1353139
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Failure to Offer Opportunity to Withdraw Guilty Plea

Text: Appellant next claims that he should have been afforded an opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea once it was determined that a jury would fix his punishment. Appellant entered his unconditional plea of guilty pursuant to RCr 8.08 at a hearing held on January 12, 1995. At the same hearing, but before the plea was accepted, the trial court considered a motion in which the Commonwealth sought to demand the empanelment of a jury for the sentencing phase pursuant to RCr 9.26, despite the fact that Appellant had validly waived his right to jury sentencing. The trial court denied the motion, and the Commonwealth stated its intent to appeal that decision. Understanding that this Court would soon determine the issue conclusively, the trial court agreed to postpone sentencing Appellant until a decision in Commonwealth v. Johnson [52] was rendered. Thereafter, the Court of Appeals considered the Commonwealth's appeal in this matter and remanded for jury sentencing in light of Johnson. Appellant now argues that the trial court should have offered him an opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea before the jury-sentencing phase commenced. What is conspicuously and inexplicably absent, however, is a defense motion to withdraw the guilty plea. Appellant acknowledges that the lack of a motion to withdraw renders this issue unpreserved, but nonetheless asks us to review the trial court's failure to re-question him as to his guilty plea for palpable error. The Appellant's arguments are without merit. Absent a defense motion, a trial court is not required to sua sponte offer defendants an opportunity to withdraw guilty pleas. The fact that the applicable law concerning jury sentencing in capital cases shifted during the pendency of this case in no way creates a duty in the trial court to re-question Appellant about his plea. Therefore, we conclude that no reversible error occurred.