Court Opinion

ID: 9634978
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:31:03.453983+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:14.027333
License: Public Domain

MANDERINO, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. My reading of the guilty plea colloquy (the relevant portions of which are quoted in the majority opin*548ion) (at pp. 1223-1224), convinces me that appellant’s plea was not knowingly and intelligently entered.
Initially it is clear that appellant felt that he had acted in self-defense: in response to the Court’s reference to Pennsylvania law concerning a defendant’s reasonable belief that the force used was necessary to protect himself, appellant responded, . .1 think it was sir.” Secondly, it is clear that appellant pled guilty because he erroneously believed — having been so informed by his attorney — that in order to gain an acquittal, he would have to prove at trial that he had acted in self-defense. Appellant’s trial counsel stated that he had advised appellant regarding his claim of self-defense, saying,
“[W]e discussed the matter of self-defense, as to whether you were in fear of Coen, that he would attack you or seriously harm you and it is my understanding as the result of our conversation, that we both decided that was not the case and we could not prove that at a trial, is that correct? (Emphasis added.)
Appellant immediately responded, saying
“Yeah, yeah, so we just stay with what we have. I know I’m in the right. I know what happened. I know I pled guilty to 3rd degree but I know I’m not guilty but I know if I go in front of a jury, I will be found guilty but everything that I have told here and that she wrote down, I’m telling the truth.” (Emphasis added.)
For these reasons, I do not believe app llant knowingly and intelligently pled guilty to murder and would therefore reverse the judgment of sentence and remand for a new trial.
ROBERTS, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.