Court Opinion

ID: 9759196
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:08:31.829359+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:00.205182
License: Public Domain

*355McDERMOTT, Justice,
concurring.
I concur and join the majority. I write separately to further delineate my position.
The majority discusses in great detail the various standards which apply to both pre- and post-sentencing petitions for withdrawal of guilty pleas. The essence of criminal procedure in this area, however, is the guilty plea colloquy itself, by which the voluntariness of a guilty plea is determined. This colloquy is the source of the guilty plea problem and should be the main focus of our attention. The standards by which the colloquy is judged are set forth in Commonwealth v. Ingram, 455 Pa. 198, 316 A.2d 77 (1974). A review of our many decisions in the guilty plea area shows that these standards have generated confusion where there should be clarity. The instant case further illustrates this point.
Defendants appealing the denial of petitions to withdraw their guilty pleas have consistently mounted two-fold attacks on the guilty plea colloquy, challenging both its content and the subjective ability of the defendant to grasp the gravity and complexity of the procedures. This course suffers from debilitating illogie.1
It is indisputable that a defendant must be fully aware of any rights that he purports to waive before such a waiver can be accepted. Nevertheless, as the majority points out, some credibility must be placed in the concept that defense *356counsel will enlighten his client as to the four elements set forth in Ingram. See Majority Opinion at 595. There is no requirement that a defendant be given what amounts to a short law school course on the nature of the charges he faces.2 This court would do well to consider an alternative to our present appeal challenging the substance of the colloquy, leaving for our review those cases which raise valid constitutional questions. Our sister state of California has implemented one such alternative. There, in order to plead guilty, the defendant signs a written form, following a voluntariness hearing, which certifies that the waiver is made with a full understanding of all rights involved. This procedure is more efficient both in conserving the Court’s time and in protecting a defendant’s constitutional rights, which is its’ fundamental purpose.3
Whether we adopt such a written form, expressly promulgate a standardized colloquy, or adopt some other alternative, the time to act is now on this situation, which cries out for a solution.4

. If a defendant truly fails to understand his situation where the substance of what is explained satisfies the dictates of Commonwealth v. Ingram, 455 Pa. 198, 316 A.2d 77 (1974), it is the complexity of the proceedings that creates the confusion. Adding more elements to the colloquy in order to clarify the procedures for the defendant only increases the complexity which causes the confusion. Moreover, the evolving patchwork of colloquy requirements places an onerous burden of uncertainty on the trial court, and affords numerous grounds for challenges to the content of the colloquy. These attacks, all too often, are used to disguise with legalistic formalism, what is, in essence, an attempt to obtain a new trial as relief from the sting of a jail sentence.

. The standard sample guilty plea colloquy used by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County covers, in its bare outline, six pages.

. People v. Chadd, 28 Cal.3d 739, 170 Cal.Rptr. 798, 621 P.2d 837 (1981), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 931, 101 S.Ct. 3066, 69 L.Ed.2d 431 (1981); People v. Jackson, 28 Cal.3d 264, 168 Cal.Rptr. 603, 618 P.2d 149 (1981), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1035, 101 S.Ct. 1750, 68 L.Ed.2d 232 (1981); People v. Frierson, 25 Cal.3d 142, 158 Cal.Rptr. 281, 599 P.2d 587 (1979); People v. Orin, 13 Cal.3d 937, 120 Cal.Rptr. 65, 533 P.2d 193 (1975).

. We have examined thus far fifty-six cases, including this case, which have engaged this Court’s attention concerning the guilty plea colloquy. The number of cases that have percolated before the Superior Court and the trial courts is vastly larger. The guilty plea colloquy has become almost symbolic of the worship of technicality over substance, and is, where not ridiculous, tragic.