Court Opinion

ID: 9728440
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:07:52.012909+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:48.607984
License: Public Domain

CAPPY, Justice,
Concurring.
I join the majority opinion to the extent that it holds that the manifest injustice standard should apply where the defendant is seeking to withdraw his guilty plea following sentencing, even in those instances where sentencing occurs immediately following the plea colloquy. As stated by the majority opinion, a manifest injustice occurs where the defendant has not tendered a knowing, intelligent or voluntary plea. See Majority opinion at 771; see also Commonwealth v. Persinger; 532 Pa. 317, 615 A.2d 1305 (1992).
I write separately, however, to make clear that in instances where neither the written nor oral colloquy inform the defendant of the significance of pleading nolo contendere, then a defendant has not tendered a knowing, intelligent and voluntary plea and, upon request, the defendant should be permitted to withdraw the guilty plea after sentencing. Although the effect of a plea of nolo contendere is equivalent to a plea of guilty, the import of the pleas is not the same. In pleading nolo contendere; the defendant does not admit his guilt, but merely consents to being punished as if he were guilty. Commonwealth v. Boyd, 221 Pa.Super. 371, 292 A.2d 434, 435 (1972). See also North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 35 n. 8, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970); Eisenberg v. Commonwealth, Dept. of Public Welfare, 512 Pa. 181, 516 A.2d 333, 335 (1986).
In this case, neither the written nor oral colloquy defined nolo contendere or explained the significance of such a plea to Appellant. Indeed, it is unclear whether Appellant ever realized that there was any distinction between pleading guilty or pleading nolo contendere.1 For this reason alone, a manifest injustice occurred requiring the grant of Appellant’s request *89to withdraw his plea. Accordingly, I find that there was no reason for the majority to consider counsel’s conduct in analyzing whether a manifest injustice occurred in this case.

. In this regard, the fact that the written colloquy erroneously indicated that Appellant was entering a guilty plea, as opposed to a plea of nolo contendere, is inconsequential, since a plea of nolo contendere is treated the same as a guilty plea, see generally Commonwealth v. Stork, 737 A.2d 789, 790 (Pa.Super. 1999), appeal denied, 564 Pa. 709, 764 A.2d 1068 (2000); moreover, counsel identified and corrected on the record certain of the errors in the written colloquy. In addition, the plea form clearly indicates Appellant's entry of a nolo contendere plea.