Court Opinion

ID: 9706999
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:58:07.091923+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:26.724586
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION BY
KLEIN, J.:
¶ 11 respectfully dissent. It is true that Snavely’s nolo contendere plea has the same effect as a guilty plea for punishment purposes. However, that does not affect the issue as to whether he did anything to violate the conditions of his parole. He was not admitted into any programs merely because he refused to acknowledge that he committed the crimes.
¶ 2 Since he never admitted his guilt because he pled nolo contendere rather than guilty, he is not going back on anything he said previously.
¶ 3 I believe there are two possibilities here, neither of which should require Snavely to automatically be returned to prison.
1. Although found guilty, he did not actually commit the offenses and is telling the truth.
*12492. If part of Snavely’s problem is that he is blocking on admitting to himself that he committed the crimes, that part of his mental health problem should be addressed rather than sending him back to jail. If Snavely has a problem with admitting his fault, there should be some treatment program that will address sexual offenders who deny responsibility.
¶ 4 Snavely did not refuse to participate in a sex offender’s program. There must be multitudes of psychologists or psychiatrists who would treat someone charged with sex offenses who does not admit his/ her guilt to probe them to see if they would admit their guilt.1 The Commonwealth should not be permitted after a plea, where guilt is not admitted, to impose a condition of parole or probation that the Commonwealth should know is impossible to be fulfilled. Here, the Commonwealth entered into a plea arrangement after Snavely refused to acknowledge guilt. The Commonwealth should know that no Lancaster County judge approved sex offender treatment program would accept Snavely when he did not acknowledge guilt. Therefore, the Commonwealth in exchange for a no-contest plea, imposed a condition of parole or probation that was impossible to be carried out. Because it was impossible, it should be vacated.
¶ 5 If the Commonwealth believes that therapeutic sex offender treatment is important and knows a defendant does not admit his guilt, it has an obvious remedy— refuse the proffer of a nolo contendere plea. If the Commonwealth or the victim perceives that sex offender therapy is particularly important for a given defendant, all the Commonwealth need do is insist upon a guilty plea or proceed to trial. Here, because the parties agreed to the nolo contendere plea, and because it would be unfair to incarcerate Snavely under the circumstances presented, I would refuse the Commonwealth’s motion to revoke Snavely’s parole.
¶ 6 Additionally, this Court has held that, “[throughout its history ... the plea of nolo contendere has been viewed not as an express admission of guilt but as a consent by the defendant that he may be punished as if he were guilty and a prayer of leniency.” Commonwealth v. Boyd, 221 Pa.Super. 371, 292 A.2d 434, 435 (1972) (citing North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970)). Therefore, when Snavely pled nolo conten-dere he accepted that his punishment would be the same as if he had pled guilty. However, there is no case law that extends the similarities of the pleas to a parolee’s recommitment when the Commonwealth imposes an impossible condition.
¶ 7 For these reasons, I must respectfully dissent.

. There are only three sex offender programs that have been approved by Lancaster County. However, Snavely’s attorney mentioned that there was a program that does work with people who have pled nolo contendere. See N.T. Parole Violation, 10/10/08, at 5.