Court Opinion

ID: 9752391
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 18:04:39.751466+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:15.971713
License: Public Domain

POMEROY, Justice
(dissenting).
For the reasons expressed in parts I and II of my dissenting opinion in Commonwealth v. Minor, 467 Pa. 230, —, 356 A.2d 346, 351-54 (1976), the guilty plea colloquy requirements set forth in Commonwealth v. Ingram, 455 Pa. 198, 316 A.2d 77 (1974), should not be applied in the instant case because Dennis Schork’s pleas of guilty were entered prior to January 24, 1974, the date of the Ingram decision.
Under pre-Ingram law, a guilty plea colloquy must demonstrate “that the plea is voluntarily and understandingly tendered.” Pa.R.Cr.P. 319(a). See Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969); Commonwealth v. McNeill, 453 Pa. 102, 305 A. 2d 51 (1973); Commonwealth v. Campbell, 451 Pa. 465, 304 A.2d 121 (1973); Commonwealth v. Maddox, 450 Pa. 406, 300 A.2d 503 (1973). In my view the colloquy which accompanied the pleas in question complied with this standard. Defense counsel explained that Schork was giving up his right to be tried by a jury and what a jury trial entailed, that in either a jury or non-jury trial the Commonwealth must prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, that following a plea of guilty Schork’s right of appeal would be severely limited, and that the maxi*253mum sentence on each of the charges was imprisonment for a term of ten to twenty years. The court then ascertained that Schork was satisfied with the representation of his attorney and that the pleas had not been induced by threats or promises. Finally, the assistant district attorney read aloud the factual basis for the charges against the defendant.
Despite the fact that this colloquy was as complete as the colloquy we approved in Commonwealth v. Martin, 445 Pa. 49, 282 A.2d 241 (1971), the Superior Court concluded that it was inadequate under pre-Ingram standards because the defendant had not been expressly informed of the nature of the charges against him. I do not agree, however, that under pr e-Ingram law the court was compelled to inform a defendant of the nature of the charges against him. See part III of my dissenting opinion in Commonwealth v. Minor, supra at-, 356 A.2d at 354. It is enough that the record generally demonstrates such an understanding. In the instant case, the court asked, “I take it that you are pleading guilty because you have reviewed the charges against you and the facts as you know them, and you feel you are guilty of these three burglaries ?” Schork responded in the affirmative. Although it would undoubtedly have been preferable for the trial court also to have made express mention by name of the crimes of larceny and receiving stolen goods, with which the defendant was also charged, I cannot agree that the court’s failure to do so renders the otherwise complete colloquy inadequate. Accordingly, I would reverse the order of the Superior Court and affirm the judgments of sentence.
EAGEN, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.