Com. v. Sutton
Decision Date | 29 January 1976 |
Citation | 350 A.2d 793,465 Pa. 335 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. James Leroy SUTTON, Appellant. |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Robert H. Chase, Dist. Atty., Bernard L. Siegel, 1st Asst. Dist. Atty., Erie, for appellee.
Before EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY and MANDERINO, JJ.
This appeal arises from an order refusing the request of appellant, James Leroy Sutton, to withdraw his guilty plea to a general charge of murder, and his subsequent conviction for first-degree murder and sentence of life imprisonment.
The sole issue presented deals with the sufficiency of the on-the-record colloquy held prior to appellant's guilty plea, as required by Pa.R.Crim.P. 319(a) and this court's decision in Commonwealth v. Ingram, 455 Pa. 198, 316 A.2d 77 (1974). The facts surrounding this appeal are as follows.
On August 23, 1973, appellant was arrested and charged with murder, robbery, burglary, conspiracy, and a violation of the Uniform Firearms Act in connection with the shooting of James T. Hogan during the armed robbery of Czartoryski's Cafe in Erie. On September 13, 1974, after the jury was sworn and the district attorney had completed his opening remarks, appellant entered his guilty plea to a general charge of murder, with the remaining indictments being nolle prossed by the Commonwealth, pursuant to a plea bargain. The murder indictment was clearly based upon the felony-murder rule, with appellant's felony being that of robbery. Appellant argues that the on-the-record colloquy failed to disclose the elements of the underlying felony of robbery which was the basis of the murder indictment and, therefore, the colloquy did not meet this court's requirements as enunciated in Ingram. We agree with appellant's contention.
In the instant case, the court, when detailing the degrees and elements of homicide, defined felony-murder as follows:
The court further in the colloquy continued:
In Ingram, supra, at 203--204, 316 A.2d at 80, we stated:
(Emphasis in original.)
We are of the opinion that when a guilty plea to a general charge of murder is factually based upon the felony-murder rule, the elements of the specific underlying felony or felonies must be included in colloquy as required by Pa.R.Crim.P. 319(a) and Commonwealth v. Ingram, supra , so as to afford the defendant a clear understanding of the nature of the charges against him.
Judgment of sentence reversed and case remanded for a new trial consistent with this opinion.
JONES, C.J., and NIX, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
In dealing with the increasingly frequent attempts by defendants to set aside pleas of guilty which they have tendered and the trial courts have accepted, this Court has adopted the approach of the American Bar Association Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to Pleas of Guilty, § 2.1 (Approved Draft, 1968) (hereinafter...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Com. v. Johnson
-
Com. v. Morin
...Commonwealth v. Dilbeck, 466 Pa. 543, 353 A.2d 824 (1976); Commonwealth v. Mack, 466 Pa. 12, 351 A.2d 278 (1976); Commonwealth v. Sutton, 465 Pa. 335, 350 A.2d 793 (1976). In contrast, since our decision in Williams (which was handed down some months prior to the Ingram decision), this Cour......
- Com. v. Rios
- Com. v. Smith