Court Opinion

ID: 9764214
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:15:10.589827+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:54.845940
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Roberts :
I concur in the result and agree that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s plea withdrawal request.
In Commonwealth v. Forbes, 450 Pa. 185, 191, 299 A. 2d 268, 271 (1973), we held that “[i]f 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.’ ” Accord, Commonwealth v. Santos, 450 Pa. 492, *57301 A. 2d 829 (1973). Cf. Commonwealth v. Starr, 450 Pa. 485, 301 A. 2d 592 (1973).
Here—as in Forbes and Santos—appellant’s assertion of innocence is a fair and just reason for permitting presentence withdrawal of the guilty plea. However, unlike Forbes and Santos, the record in this case reveals that the Commonwealth was, in fact, substantially prejudiced by reliance upon appellant’s guilty plea. As the majority correctly states, “appellant’s actions, if allowed to succeed, might be a means of obtaining an entirely new jury for a defendant anytime he feels that the jury originally selected is not favorably disposed to his cause, even though there were no grounds for a mistrial.”
For this reason alone, I would hold, on this record, that the Commonwealth was prejudiced by reliance upon appellant’s guilty plea. I am unable to conclude —as does the majority—that the “possibility” of prejudice is a sufficient ground for denying withdrawal. That appellant “would obtain an unfair advantage by being allowed, together with his counsel, a full preview of the Commonwealth’s evidence” is not prejudice. Moreover, on this record, any conclusion that the Commonwealth was prejudiced by the unavailability of witnesses is mere conjecture.*
Mr. Justice Nix joins in this concurring opinion,

 If, in fact, witnesses become unavailable, tbe Commonwealth is permitted to use their testimony at the subsequent proceeding. Commonwealth v. Velasquez, 449 Pa. 599, 296 A. 2d 768 (1972).