Court Opinion

ID: 9757520
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 22:44:31.571479+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:40.331069
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion
by Mr. Justice Boberts:
I join the majority but wish to express my view on an issue mentioned but not discussed by the majority. A review of the colloquy between the trial court and appellant indicates that appellant’s plea of guilty to murder generally rested to a “significant degree” on a plea bargain in which the district attorney promised to recommend a sentence of life imprisonment, gee Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262, 92 S. Ct. 495, 499 (1971). Notwithstanding this plea bargain neither the district attorney nor defense counsel informed the trial court of the agreement, and both counsel stood mute during the degree of guilt hearing. If this was so, the failure by both the district attorney and defense counsel to inform the court of the existence of the plea bargain was in clear violation of their respective professional obligations.1
The controlling decisional law and authorities2 are clear that once a district attorney enters into a plea *15bargain he has the professional responsibility to perform his part of the bargain. See e.g., Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 92 S. Ct. 495 (1971); Commonwealth v. Alvarado, 442 Pa. 516, 276 A. 2d 526 (1971); see also United States ex rel. Culbreath v. Rundle, F. 2d (3d Cir. 1972). Here, however, appellant did in fact receive a sentence of life imprisonment despite the failure of either the district attorney or defense counsel to inform the court of the plea bargain. My concurrence in no way condones the district attorney’s or defense counsel’s failure to satisfy their professional responsibilities by informing the court of the existence of the plea bargain.
Mr. Justice Nix joins in this opinion.

 ABA Project on Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to Pleas of Guilty §1.5 (Approved Draft 1968) ; ABA Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relat*15ing to The Function of the Trial Judge §4.1 (b) (Tentative Draft 1972).

 The ABA Standards for The Prosecution Function observe: “(e) If the prosecutor finds he is unable to fulfill an understanding previously agreed upon in plea discussions, he should give notice promptly to the defendant and cooperate in securing leave of the court for the defendant to withdraw any plea and take other steps appropriate to restore the defendant to the position he was in before the understanding was reached or plea made.” ABA Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to The Prosecution Function and the Defense Function, The Prosecution Function §4.3 (Approved Draft 1971) ; see also ABA Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to The Function of the Trial Judge §4.1 (c) (iii) (Tentative Draft 1972) ; ABA Project on Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to Pleas of Guilty §§1.5 and 2.1(a) (ii) (4) (Approved Draft 1998) ; Pa. R. Crim. P. 319(a).