green
Positive treatment
Hot · 38 in 5y
Under Fire
Quoted verbatim 3×
60.8 score
“a bare assertion of innocence-such as appellee provided as the basis for withdrawing his guilty plea-is not, in and of itself a sufficient reason to require a court to grant such a request.”
Treatment trajectory · 2015 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2015
2020
2026
Under fire — who is questioning this case
Citations from separate opinions of courts that could overrule this
case.
This is a warning signal, not a treatment change. The flag color above is unaffected.
Dissent
Commonwealth v. Norton, M., Aplt.
(2019)
“Two months later, at his sentencing hearing, he told the court: "I'm here to maintain my innocence in the charge of murder in the first degree." Id.”
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Commonwealth v. Islas
he main reason the court has repeatedly invoked in support of the liberal allowance of presentence withdrawal of pleas is to safeguard defendants' trial rights.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Com. v. Levanowitz, D.
bare assertion of innocence-such as ppellee provided as the basis for withdrawing his guilty plea-is not, in and of itself a sufficient reason to require a court to grant such a request.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Com. v. Clevenger, W.
a bare assertion of innocence-such as appellee provided as the basis for withdrawing his guilty plea-is not, in and of itself a sufficient reason to require a court to grant such a request.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Barden, J.
Thus, the Aumick Court rejected the precise arguments Appellant raises here, and the Aumick Court did so in reliance on prior authority set forth in Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337 (Pa. Super. 2014), overruled in part on other grounds by Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 116 A.3d 1103, 1106 (Pa. 2015).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Minder, L.
Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 352-53 (Pa. Super. 2014), impliedly overruled on other grounds by Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 116 A.3d 1103, 1106 (Pa. 2015) (overruling the holding in Commonwealth v. Lesko, 467 A.2d 307 (Pa. 1983), that the post-sentence plea withdrawal standard applies to plea withdrawal requests where the parties have negotiated a sentence, but the defendant moves to withdraw the plea prior to sentencing; Prendes also relied on that holding in Lesko).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Johnson, X.
See Carrasquillo, supra at 706 n.9, 115 A.3d at 1293 n.9 (declining to address prejudice to Commonwealth, because defendant failed to assert plausible claim of innocence); Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 632 Pa. 3, 9 , 116 A.3d 1103, 1107 (2015) (holding pre-sentence request to withdraw plea failed where defendant made only bare assertion of innocence).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Wolfe, J.
See Carrasquillo, supra at 706 n.9, 115 A.3d at 1293 n.9 (declining to address prejudice to Commonwealth because defendant failed to assert plausible claim of innocence); Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 632 Pa. 3, 9 , 116 A.3d 1103, 1107 (2015) (holding pre-sentence request to withdraw plea failed where defendant made only bare assertion of innocence).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Tighe, J.
See Carrasquillo, supra at 706 n.9, 115 A.3d at 1293 n.9 (declining to address prejudice to Commonwealth, because defendant failed to assert plausible claim of innocence); Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 632 Pa. 3, 9 , 116 A.3d 1103, 1107 (2015) (holding pre-sentence request to withdraw plea failed where defendant made only bare assertion of innocence).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Flower, D.
Commonwealth v. Norton, 650 Pa. 569 , 201 A.3d 112, 120-23 (2019); Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 632 Pa. 3 , 116 A.3d 1103, 1105, 1107 (2015); Baez, 169 A.3d at 39-41 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Washington, T.
In Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 -2- J-S31030- 23 A.3d 337 , 352 (Pa. Super. 2014), impliedly overruled on other grounds by Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 632 Pa. 3 , 116 A.3d 1103, 1106 (2015), we explained that a defendant may withdraw his guilty plea after sentencing “only where necessary to correct manifest injustice.” Prendes, 97 A.3d at 352 (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Wynder, T.
The law imposes a stricter standard for post-sentence withdrawal motions in order to balance “the tension . . . between the individual's fundamental right to a trial and the need for finality in the proceedings.” Commonwealth v. Gunter, 771 A.2d 767 (Pa. 2001); Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 116 A.3d 1103, 1106 (Pa. 2015).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Wynder, T.
The law imposes a stricter standard for post-sentence withdrawal motions in order to balance “the tension . . . between the individual's fundamental right to a trial and the need for finality in the proceedings.” Commonwealth v. Gunter, 771 A.2d 767 (Pa. 2001); Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 116 A.3d 1103, 1106 (Pa. 2015).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Samuels, J.
Commonwealth v. Norton, 650 Pa. 569 , 201 A.3d 112, 120-23 (2019); Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 632 Pa. 3 , 116 A.3d 1103, 1105, 1107 (2015); Baez, 169 A.3d at 39-41 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Hetherington, R.
In Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 352 (Pa. Super. 2014), impliedly overruled on other grounds by Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 632 Pa. 3 , 116 A.3d 1103, 1106 (2015), we explained that a defendant may withdraw his guilty plea after sentencing “only where necessary to correct manifest injustice.” Prendes, 97 A.3d at 352 (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com v. Popichak, C.
Carrasqullio, supra at 706 n.9, 115 A.3d at 1293 n.9 (declining to address prejudice to Commonwealth, because defendant failed to assert plausible claim of innocence); Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 632 Pa. 3, 9 , 116 A.3d 1103, 1107 (2015) (holding pre-sentence request to withdraw plea failed where defendant made only bare assertion of innocence).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Alves, A.
Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 116 A.3d 1103, 1104, 1107 (Pa. 2015). -3- J-S45026-22 In Commonwealth v. Islas, 156 A.3d 1185 (Pa. Super. 2017), this Court distilled four “guideposts” from Carrasquillo: First, the Court squarely rejected a per se approach in which any presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea based on a claim of innocence must be granted.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Nye, R.
Commonwealth v. Norton, 201 A.3d 112, 120-23 (Pa. 2019); Carrasquillo, 115 A.3d at 1292-93 ; Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 116 A.3d 1103, 1105, 1107 (2015); Baez, 169 A.3d at 39-41 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Jamison, T.
Commonwealth v. Norton, 201 A.3d 112, 120-23 (Pa. 2019); Carrasquillo, 115 A.3d at 1292 - 93; Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 116 A.3d 1103, 1105, 1107 (Pa. 2015); Baez, 169 A.3d at 39-41 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Nigro, M.
Filed July 8, 2016). 5Prendes was tacitly overruled on other grounds by Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 116 A.3d 1103, 1106 (Pa. 2015). -5- J-S05017-22 We may not weigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the trial court, and our scope of review is plenary.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Garcia, F.
(2×)
Prendes relied on Commonwealth v. Lesko, 467 A.2d 307 (Pa. 1983), which our Supreme Court overruled in Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 116 A.3d 1103, 1106 (Pa. 2015).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Bradley, A., Aplt.
See Commonwealth v. Resto, 179 A.3d 18, 23 (Pa. 2018) (finding doctrine of stare decisis does not apply to pronouncements that are not adequately supported in reason); Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 116 A.3d 1103, 1105 (Pa. 2015) (determining that incompletely reasoned decisions should not remain controlling authority).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Johnson, L.
Inter alia, the law imposes a stricter standard for post-sentence withdrawal motions in order to balance “the tension ... between the individual's fundamental right to a trial and the need for finality in the proceedings.” Commonwealth v. Gunter, 565 Pa. 79 , 771 A.2d 767 (2001); Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 632 Pa. 3 , 116 A.3d 1103, 1106 (2015).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Wayda, A.
One of the reasons the law imposes a stricter standard for post-sentence withdrawal motions is to balance “the tension … between the individual’s fundamental right to a trial and the need for finality in the proceedings.” Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 116 A.3d 1103, 1106 (Pa. 2015).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Bramhall, D.
In Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.2d 337 , 352 (Pa. Super. 2014), impliedly overruled on other grounds by Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 116 A.3d 1103, 1106 (Pa. 2015), we explained that a defendant may withdraw his guilty plea after sentencing “only where necessary to correct manifest injustice.” Prendes, 97 A.3d at 352 (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lower Bucks County Joint Municipal Authority v. P. Koszarek
Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 358 (Pa. Super. 2014) (emphasis added), impliedly overruled on other grounds by Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 116 A.3d 1103, 1106 (Pa. 2015).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Christian, K.
Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 353 (Pa. Super. 2014) (parallel citations omitted), impliedly overruled on other grounds by Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 116 A.3d 1103, 1106 (Pa. 2015).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Early, M.
Carrasqullio, supra at 706 n.9, 115 A.3d at 1293 n.9 (declining to address prejudice to Commonwealth, because defendant failed to assert plausible claim of innocence); Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 632 Pa. 3, 9 , 116 A.3d 1103, 1107 (2015) (holding pre-sentence request to withdraw plea failed on sole basis that defendant made only bare assertion of innocence).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Wise, J.
In Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 352 (Pa. Super. 2014), impliedly overruled on other grounds by Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 632 Pa. 3 , 116 A.3d 1103, 1106 (2015), we explained that a defendant may withdraw his guilty plea after sentencing “only where necessary to correct manifest injustice.” Prendes, 97 A.3d at 352 (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Bickham, T., Jr.
In Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 352 (Pa. Super. 2014), impliedly overruled on other grounds by Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 116 A.3d 1103, 1106 (Pa. 2015), we explained that a defendant may withdraw his guilty plea after sentencing “only where necessary to correct manifest injustice.” Prendes, 97 A.3d at 352 (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Parks, E.
Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 116 A.3d 1103, 1106 (Pa. 2015).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Brown, C.
Preliminarily, [i]n Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 352 (Pa. Super. 2014), impliedly overruled on other grounds by Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 116 A.3d 1103, 1106 ([Pa.] 2015), we explained that a defendant may withdraw his guilty plea after sentencing “only where necessary to correct manifest injustice.” Prendes, 97 A.3d at 352 (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Siderio, J.
Inter alia, the law imposes a stricter standard for post-sentence withdrawal motions in order to balance “the tension … between the individual’s fundamental right to a trial and the need for finality in the proceedings.” Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 116 A.3d 1103, 1106 (Pa. 2015).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Norton, M., Aplt.
Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 116 A.3d 1103, 1104 (Pa. 2015).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Norton, M., Aplt.
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
On appeal to this Court, we explained that the Carrasquillo Court "determined that a bare assertion of innocence-such as [Hzivda] provided as the basis for withdrawing his guilty plea-is not, in and of itself a sufficient reason to require a court to grant such a request." Id. at 1107.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Harvey, N. a.k.a. Elrod, E.
Inter alia, the law imposes a stricter standard for post-sentence withdrawal motions in order to balance 3 Both Appellant and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. -4- J-S52040-18 “the tension … between the individual’s fundamental right to a trial and the need for finality in the proceedings.” Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 116 A.3d 1103, 1106 (Pa. 2015).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Mikottis, M.
Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 116 A.3d 1103, 1105 (Pa. 2015) (citation omitted); see Majority Memorandum, ante at 2, quoting Carrasquillo, 115 A.3d at 1291-1292 .3 2 The Concurring Memorandum takes issue with this “nebulous” test.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Hall, R.
Id. at 1285 .2 Recent cases demonstrate that a trial court permissibly denies a presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea based on a claim of innocence ____________________________________________ 2 See also Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 116 A.3d 1103, 1107 (Pa. 2015) (holding that defendant’s bare assertion of innocence was insufficient reason to require granting of defendant’s presentence request to withdraw his plea). -3- J-S09024-18 where the record before the trial court shows the claim of innocence is not colorable or plausible.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Hart, J.
In Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 352 (Pa. Super. 2014), impliedly overruled on other grounds by Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 116 A.3d 1103, 1106 (Pa. 2015), we explained that a defendant may withdraw his guilty plea after sentencing “only where necessary to correct manifest injustice.” Prendes, 97 A.3d at 352 (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Stancil, W.
Pollard, supra. Commonwealth v. Kpou, 153 A.3d 1020 , 1023–24 (Pa.Super. 2016) (quoting Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337 , 351–54 (Pa.Super. 2014), impliedly overruled on other grounds by Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 116 A.3d 1103, 1106 (Pa. 2015)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Pete, A.
In Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 116 A.3d 1103, 1104, 1107 (Pa. 2015), a companion case to Carrasquillo, the defendant -6- J-S28020-17 “stated he was innocent, but he offered no evidence.” In contrast, the Commonwealth presented audiotapes of defendant’s telephone conversations from prison in which he admitted to the murder and stated that he wanted a trial only to “get some of the story out.” Id. at 1104 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Baez
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Lesko , however, was overruled in Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 632 Pa. 3 , 116 A.3d 1103, 1106 (2015), wherein our High Court announced: "we disapprove Lesko’s idiosyncratic approach to presentence withdrawal.” Since Prendes relied upon Lesko for the stated proposition and since Lesko was subsequently overruled by Hvizda , we cannot utilize the manifest injustice standard in assessing the validity of Appellant’s guilty plea.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Piner, S.
Pollard, supra. Commonwealth v. Kpou, 153 A.3d 1020, 1023-24 (Pa.Super. 2016) (quoting Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 351-54 (Pa.Super. 2014), impliedly overruled on other grounds by Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 116 A.3d 1103, 1106 (Pa. 2015)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Baez, J.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Lesko, however, was overruled in Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 116 A.3d 1103, 1106 (2015), wherein our High Court announced: “we disapprove Lesko's idiosyncratic approach to presentence withdrawal.” Since Prendes relied upon Lesko for the stated proposition and since Lesko was subsequently overruled by Hvizda, we cannot utilize the manifest injustice standard in assessing the validity of Appellant’s guilty plea.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Cannon, R.
However, our Supreme Court has since disapproved of “Lesko’s idiosyncratic approach to presentence withdrawal.” Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 116 A.3d 1103, 1106 (Pa. 2015). -3- J-S31034-16 that Appellant wished to withdraw his guilty plea because he felt that Attorney Judd “had coerced him in to pleading guilty and that was not really the decision he wanted to make, but he was influenced by the things that [Attorney Judd] had said to him.” N.T., 8/26/15, at 2.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Williams, G.
Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 116 A.3d 1103, 1107 (Pa. 2015); Commonwealth v. f i \I Carrasquillo, 115 A.3d 1284, 1285 (Pa. 2015)(a bare assertion of innocence as a basis for Ii ! l !I withdrawing a guilty plea, is not, in and of itself, a sufficient reason to require a court to grant j ! iI 11 such a request). !
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Best, J.
See Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 360 (Pa. Super. 2014) (noting that “an SOAB expert opinion falls within the general rules regarding expert witnesses”), overruled sub silentio on other grounds by Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 116 A.3d 1103, 1106 (Pa. 2015).
examined
Cited "see"
Com. v. Aumick, J.
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 360 (Pa. Super 2014), overruled sub silentio on other grounds by Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 116 A.3d 1103, 1106 (Pa. 2015).
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Droddy, D.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Hvizda, 116 A.3d at 1103 ; cf. Islas, 156 A.3d at 1191-92 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Tindale, D.
See Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 116 A.3d 1103 (Pa. 2015) (affirming trial court’s rejection of defendant’s bald assertion of innocence in motion to withdraw plea where defendant was recorded admitting his guilt in telephone conversations from prison).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Edward GRAZIANO
v.
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, John Wetzel, Nancy Giroux, Cheryl Gill
v.
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, John Wetzel, Nancy Giroux, Cheryl Gill
Edward Graziano, Pro Se., Suzanne Noelle Hueston, Julie Renee Tilghman, Mechanicsburg, PA, for Department of Corrections, Cheryl Gill, Nancy Giroux, and John Wetzel.
Published
ORDER
PER CURIAM.AND NOW, this 15th day of June, 2015, the direct appeal is QUASHED. Appellant’s Application to Correct the Factual Record (Pa.R.A.P. 2501(a)) is DISMISSED AS MOOT.