green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
19.0 score
“he above six questions are mandatory during a guilty plea colloquy and the failure to 'satisfy these minimal requirements will result in reversal.”
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978
2002
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 31 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Com. v. Calbert, L.
he above six questions are mandatory during a guilty plea colloquy and the failure to 'satisfy these minimal requirements will result in reversal.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Penhollow, D.
Commonwealth v. Willis, 369 A.2d 1189, 1190 (Pa. 1977).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Rauso, G.
"A guilty plea colloquy must include inquiry as to whether: (1) the defendant understood the nature of the charge to which he is pleading guilty; (2) there is a factual basis for the plea; (3) the defendant understands that he has the right to a jury trial; (4) the defendant understands that he is presumed innocent until he is found guilty; (5) the defendant is aware as to the permissible range of sentences; and (6) the defendant is aware that the judge is not bound by the terms of any plea agreement unless he accepts such agreements." Commonwealth v. Flood, 426 Pa.Super. 555, 565 , 627 A.2d 1…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Ball III, J.
(2×)
The Commonwealth argues that, after ruling in Ball’s favor in regard to the double jeopardy issue, we should remand the case for resentencing or retrial of the (?continued) Willis, 369 A.2d 1189, 1190 (Pa. 1977) (questions enumerated in comment to rule governing plea agreements are mandatory in order for plea colloquy to be valid, including, inter alia, inquiry into defendant’s awareness of right to trial by jury, presumption of innocence). [J-16-2016] - 21 lesser included offense of DUS.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Jones
(2×)
Walls v. Rundle, 414 Pa. 53 , 198 A.2d 528 (1964)), and that a judge must ascertain that a factual basis exists for any guilty plea, see Pa.R.Crim.P. 590 comment; Commonwealth v. Willis, 471 Pa. 50, 51-52 , 369 A.2d 1189, 1190 (1977), which may render any error related to the prima facie case harmless.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Flanagan
(4×)
First, it failed to adduce the factual basis for the plea, see Pa.R.Crim.P. 590 (comment) (formerly Pa.R.Crim.P. 319); Commonwealth v. Willis, 471 Pa. 50, 51-52 , 369 A.2d 1189, 1190 (1977) (reflecting the mandatory requirement for a plea court to adduce a factual basis for the plea during a guilty plea colloquy); instead, the court merely alluded to its basic familiarity with the circumstances underlying the plea.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Khorey
Commonwealth v. Willis, 471 Pa. 50, 51-52 , 369 A.2d 1189, 1190 (1977); Commonwealth v. Dilbeck, 466 Pa. 543, 547 , 353 A.2d 824, 826-27 (1976).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Proctor
Our Courts have repeatedly held that a court must ensure that a plea is knowing, intelligent and voluntary, see, e.g., Commonwealth v. Willis, 471 Pa. 50, 52 , 369 A.2d 1189, 1189-90 (1977); Commonwealth v. Ingram, 455 Pa. 198, 200 , 316 A.2d 77, 78 (1974); Commonwealth v. Dello Buono, 271 Pa.Superior Ct. 572, 577-78, 414 A.2d 631, 633-34 (1979), and this is to be accomplished by means of an on-the-record colloquy, Commonwealth v. Dello Buono, supra, 271 Pa. Superior Ct. at 577 , 414 A.2d at 633 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Muller
(2×)
Accord: Commonwealth v. Willis, 471 Pa. 50, 52 , 369 A.2d 1189, 1190 (1977).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Carelli
Commonwealth v. Willis, 471 Pa. 50, 51-52 , 369 A.2d 1189, 1190 (1977); Commonwealth v. Dilbeck, 466 Pa. 543, 547 , 353 A.2d 824, 826-27 (1976); Commonwealth v. Ingram, 455 Pa. 198 , 204-205 n. 5, 316 A.2d 77 , 81 n. 5 (1974); Pa.R.Crim.P. 319 (Comment).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Tanur
Commonwealth v. Schork, 467 Pa. 248 , 356 A.2d 355 (1976); Commonwealth v. Miner, 467 Pa. 230 , 356 A.2d 346 (1976).” (Emphasis supplied.) The above language makes clear that the above six questions are mandatory during a guilty plea colloquy and the failure to “satisfy these minimal requirements will result in reversal.” Commonwealth v. Willis, 471 Pa. 50, 50-52 , 369 A.2d 1189, 1189-90 (1977) (emphasis in original).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Harris
Manifestly, appellant here, as in Morin and Williams , is entitled to a new trial. 5 See also Commonwealth v. Kulp, 476 Pa. 358, 363 , 382 A.2d 1209, 1212 (1978) (remand for new trial where record revealed colloquy on waiver of right to trial deficient under Rule 319(a) in failing to advise of range of sentences); Commonwealth v. Willis, 471 Pa. 50, 51-52 , 369 A.2d 1189, 1189-90 (1977) (remand for new trial where Rule 319(a) colloquy did not inform defendant of presumption of innocence).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Bruno
(2×)
Commonwealth v. Schork, 467 Pa. 248 , 356 A.2d 355 (1976); Commonwealth v. Minor, 467 Pa. 230 , 356 A.2d 346 (1976).’ (Emphasis supplied).” Commonwealth v. Willis, 471 Pa. 50, 52 , 369 A.2d 1189, 1190 (1977).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Frankhouser
However, at a minimum the judge should ask questions to elicit the following information: (1) Does the defendant understand the nature of the charges to which he is pleading guilty? (2) Is there a factual basis for the plea? (3) Does the defendant understand that he has the right to trial by jury? (4) Does the defendant understand that he is presumed innocent until he is found guilty? (5) Is the defendant aware of the permissible range of sentences and/or fines for the offenses charged? (6) Is the defendant aware that the judge is not bound by the terms of any plea agreement tendered unless th…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Whelan
(2×)
We reaffirmed Dilbeck in Commonwealth v. Willis, 471 Pa. 50, 52 , 369 A.2d 1189, 1190 (1977), stating that each of the six questions noted in the comment are “mandatory during a guilty plea colloquy and the failure to ‘satisfy these minimal requirements will result in reversal.’ ” (emphasis in original).
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Watkins, M.
See Commonwealth v. Willis, 369 A.2d 1189, 1190 (Pa. 1977) (reversing guilty plea because the trial court did not instruct the defendant on the presumption of innocence); Commonwealth v. Dillbeck, -6- J-S36015-17 353 A.2d 824 (Pa. 1976) (reversing guilty plea to murder, generally, because the trial court had failed to explain the concept of malice).
examined
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Morrison
(6×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Commonwealth v. Willis, 471 Pa. 50 , 369 A.2d 1189 (1977); Commonwealth v. Dilbeck, 466 Pa. 543 , 353 A.2d 824 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Vega
(2×)
See Commonwealth v. Willis, 471 Pa. 50 , 369 A.2d 1189 (1977) (inquiry into six areas is mandatory during a guilty plea colloquy).
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Shekerko
(2×)
See Commonwealth v. Willis, 471 Pa. 50 , 369 A.2d 1189 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Turiano
(2×)
See Commonwealth v. Willis, 471 Pa. 50 , 369 A.2d 1189 (1977); Commonwealth v. Dilbeck, 466 Pa. 543 , 353 A.2d 824 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Casner
(2×)
See Pa.R.Crim.P. 319, Comment and Commonwealth v. Willis, 471 Pa. 50 , 369 A.2d 1189 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Schultz
(2×)
Accord, Commonwealth v. Willis, 471 Pa. 50 , 369 A.2d 1189 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Knox
(2×)
See Commonwealth v. Willis, 471 Pa. 50 , 369 A.2d 1189 (1977); Commonwealth v. Dilbeck, 466 Pa. 543 , 353 A.2d 824 *375 (1976); Commonwealth v. Schork, 467 Pa. 248 , 356 A.2d 355 (1976); Commonwealth v. Minor, 467 Pa. 230 , 356 A.2d 346 (1976); Commonwealth v. Ingram, 455 Pa. 198 , 316 A.2d 77 (1974).
examined
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Dello Buono
(4×)
See Commonwealth v. Willis, 471 Pa. 50 , 369 A.2d 1189 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Klobuchir
(2×)
See Commonwealth v. Willis, 471 Pa. 50, 369 A.2d 1189 (1977). 2 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Com. v. Moore, T.
See also Commonwealth v. Willis, 471 Pa. 50, 51-52 , 369A.2d 1189, 1189-90 (1977); Commonwealth v. Bedell, 954 A.2d 1209, 1212 (Pa. Super. 2008).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Com. v. Wheeler, S.
See also Commonwealth v. Willis, 369 A.2d 1189 (Pa. 1977); Commonwealth v. Ingram, 316 A.2d 77 (Pa. -4- J-S37039-16 1974); Commonwealth v. Martin, 282 A.2d 241, 244-45 (Pa. 1971).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth v. Wholaver
(4×)
See Pa.R.Crim.P. 590, cmt.; see also Commonwealth v. Willis, 471 Pa. 50 , 369 A.2d 1189, 1190 (1977) (mandating that trial court, during plea colloquy, elicit information set forth in Comment to Rule 590). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth v. White
(2×)
See also, Commonwealth v. Willis, 471 Pa. 50, 51-52 , 369 A.2d 1189, 1189-90 (1977). “[Njothing in [Rule 509] precludes the supplementation of the oral colloquy by a written colloquy that is read, completed, and signed by the defendant and made a part of the plea proceedings.” Bedell, supra at 1212-13 (citing Commonwealth v. Morrison, 878 A.2d 102, 108 (Pa. Super. 2005)).
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania
v.
Barry E. WILLIS, Appellant (Two Cases)
v.
Barry E. WILLIS, Appellant (Two Cases)
267, 468.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Feb 28, 1977.
Gary F. DiVito, Philadelphia, for appellant., F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, Dist. Atty., Steven H. Goldblatt, Asst. Dist. Atty., Chief, Appeals Div., for appellee.
Jones, Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Nix, Manderino.
Cited by 109 opinions | Published
[*51] OPINION OF THE COURT
On March 18, 1975, Charles Johnson was shot to death in front of his home on Latona Street, Philadelphia, during the course of a robbery. On May 21, 1975, appellant, Barry E. Willis, was arrested and charged with murder, criminal conspiracy and robbery.
On October 27, 1975, appellant entered pleas of guilty to the indictments charging murder, criminal conspiracy and robbery. The Commonwealth certified that the degree of guilt for the murder indictment would rise no higher than murder in the third degree. On December 2, 1975, appellant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five to fifteen years on the murder in the third degree conviction, five to fifteen years on the robbery conviction and five to ten years on the criminal conspiracy conviction. All sentences were to run concurrently.
Appellant has appealed the judgment of sentence on the conviction for murder in the third degree to this court and appealed the judgments of sentence on the robbery and conspiracy convictions to the Superior Court, which certified that appeal to this court.
Appellant argues that the court below erred in failing to inform appellant during the on-the-record guilty plea colloquy of the presumption of innocence. We agree.
In Commonwealth v. Dilbeck, 466 Pa. 543, 353 A.2d 824 (1976), this court stated:
“The Comments to Rule 319(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure recommend that ‘at a minimum the judge ask questions to ellicit the following information:’
“(1) Does the defendant understand the nature of the charges to which he is pleading guilty ?
“ (2) Is there a factual basis for the plea ?
[*52] “(3) Does the defendant understand that he has the right to trial by jury ?
“(4) Does the defendant understand that he is presumed innocent until he is found guilty?
“(5) Is the defendant aware of the permissible range of sentences and/or fines for the offenses charged ?
“(6) Is the defendant aware that the judge is not bound by the terms of any plea agreement tendered unless the judge accepts such agreement?
“We reiterate here what was said in Ingram, [Commonwealth v. Ingram, 455 Pa. 198, 316 A.2d 77 (1974)] at 204-205, 316 A.2d at 81: ‘Adherence to [the guidelines set out in the Comments to Rule 319(a)] will serve to protect the rights of defendants while simultaneously facilitating appellate review.’ Failure to satisfy these minimal requirements will result in reversal. Commonwealth v. Schork, 467 Pa. 248, 356 A.2d 355 (1976); Commonwealth v. Miner, 467 Pa. 230, 356 A.2d 346 (1976).” (Emphasis supplied.)
The above language makes clear that the above six questions are mandatory during a guilty plea colloquy and the failure to “satisfy these minimal requirements will result in reversal.”
The court below did not inform appellant of the presumption of innocence and, therefore, under the reasoning of Commonwealth v. Dilbeck, the judgments must be reversed and case remanded for a new trial.
Judgments of sentence reversed and case remanded for a new trial.