Court Opinion

ID: 9750293
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 14:47:19.415774+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:06.656406
License: Public Domain

OLSZEWSKI, Judge,
concurring:
I fully join in the majority opinion as to this case. I write only to address the dissent’s contention that Pa.R.Crim.P. 319(b)(3) requires a trial court to allow a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea if the court cannot accept the nonbinding sentence recommendation made pursuant to the plea bargain.
Plea bargains result in a variety of promises being made to the accused in exchange for a plea of guilty.
In an open plea agreement, there is an agreement as to the charges to be brought, but no agreement at all to restrict the prosecution’s right to seek the maximum sentences applicable to those charges. At the other end of the negotiated plea agreement continuum, a plea *486agreement may specify not only the charges to be brought, but also the specific penalties to be imposed. In between those extremes are various options, including an agreement to make no recommendation or, as here, an agreement to make a favorable but non-binding recommendation.
Commonwealth v. Porreca, 389 Pa.Super. 553, 560, 567 A.2d 1044, 1047 (1989) (emphasis added). Such a nonbinding favorable sentencing recommendation does give the accused a certain advantage.
Though the sentencing court’s discretion would remain unfettered in such a context, nonetheless, it would be exercised without the influence of argument for a stiff sentence which might counterbalance or even outweigh defense counsel’s plea for leniency.
Id., 389 Pa.Superior Ct. at 560 n. 3, 567 A.2d at 1047 n. 3. The dissent’s position would, in effect, write this option out of existence.
A plea bargain progresses, to a large extent, similar to other negotiations. The relative strengths of the parties are often determinative of the terms of the agreement. The dissent’s position interferes with this negotiation. A court would be required to allow a defendant to withdraw his guilty plea if the court will not agree to the non-binding sentence recommendation. In effect, this gives the accused that which he could not obtain at the bargaining table: a promise of the specific penalty to be imposed in exchange for his guilty plea; a promise over and above the benefit he already obtained by the recommendation. If the best bargain the accused can obtain is a promise of a non-binding recommendation, the trial court should not be obligated to improve his position. “Rule 319(b)(3) does not give the defendant a right which is greater than the terms of the plea bargain itself.” Majority at 475. It cannot, in effect, convert a non-binding recommendation into a binding one.
The trial court engaged in an extensive colloquy emphasizing the fact that it would not be bound to accept the sentencing recommendation. This was the best deal McClendon could obtain through negotiation. Assuredly, *487he hoped the trial court would adopt the recommendation; however, he stated at least four times that he understood the risk he was taking. Majority at 478. The Commonwealth having performed its end of the bargain, McClendon is bound by his.
JOHNSON, J., joins.