Court Opinion

ID: 9728439
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:07:52.008681+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:48.607243
License: Public Domain

NIGRO, Justice,
Dissenting.
I concur in the result reached by the majority that Appellant did not kno," ugly and freely enter his nolo contendere plea and, therefore, that he should be allowed to withdraw the plea. I write separately, however, because, unlike the majority, I do not believe that the fact that some of the written colloquy questions refer to a plea of “guilty” as opposed to “nolo contendere ” should be a consideration in deciding whether Appellant may withdraw his plea.1 I would hold that under the circumstances of this case, Appellant’s plea was not knowingly and freely entered into due to the lack of any on-*88the-record colloquy, regardless of the sufficiency of the written colloquy.

. Although the dissenting opinion asserts that the plea form clearly indicates appellant's entry of a nolo contendere plea, it overlooks the fact that on this same plea form the word guilty is scratched out and replaced by nolo contendere.

. A plea of nolo contendere has the exact same effect as a plea of guilty. Commonwealth v. Nelson, 446 Pa.Super. 240, 666 A.2d 714, 717 (1995), allocatur denied, 544 Pa. 605, 674 A.2d 1069 (Pa. 1996). Thus, whether a defendant pleads guilty or nolo contendere, the defendant is agreeing to forgo a trial, be convicted of a crime, and be sentenced accordingly. *89Tlie practical difference between the pleas is that a defendant need not admit to any guilt in a nolo contendere plea.