Court Opinion

ID: 9756280
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 21:20:12.449234+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:17.467770
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Roberts:
I concur in the result reached by the majority and add the following observation.
In this case, as the majority points out, after the entry of the guilty plea and not as any part of a plea bargain, the Commonwealth agreed to certify that appellant’s degree of guilt rose no higher than second degree murder in return for appellant’s agreement to forego any right to invalidate his guilty plea by appeal or collateral attack. As the majority also points out, the trial court has the authority to refuse to accept any post-plea arrangement between a prosecutor and the defense, just as the trial court has the authority to refuse to accept any plea bargain.
*299In my view, however, not only did the trial court have the authority to refuse to accept the post-plea arrangement that was made here, but it would have been error for the coui't to accept such an arrangement. I do not believe that the courts of this Commonwealth should allow a defendant to bargain away his rights to appellate review of his conviction or his rights of collateral attack. If a guilty plea has been voluntarily, intelligently, and lawfully entered, there is no need for a prosecutor to seek a further concession from a defendant that he surrender additionally whatever rights he may have to direct appeal or collateral review. To sanction such arrangements serves no proper interest of justice and would only invite attempts to insulate guilty pleas unlawfully obtained from appropriate appellate review.
Mr. Chief Justice Jones and Mr. Justice Manderino join in this concurring opinion.