green
Positive treatment
Trending · 145 recent citers
Quoted verbatim 3×
92.8 score
“he absence of an interview does not preclude the ability to evaluate the offender's behavior through available history for characteristics similar or dissimilar to the criteria set forth in the law for defining .”
Treatment trajectory · 2014 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2014
2020
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Com. v. Sheriff, M.
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted)
rejudice would require a showing that due to events occurring after the plea was entered, the commonwealth is placed in a worse position than it would have been had trial taken place as scheduled.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Com. v. Hall, M.
(4×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
he absence of an interview does not preclude the ability to evaluate the offender's behavior through available history for characteristics similar or dissimilar to the criteria set forth in the law for defining .
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Com. v. Calcagni, C.
(4×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
he absence of an interview does not preclude the ability to evaluate the offender's behavior through available history for characteristics similar or dissimilar to the criteria set forth in the law for defining .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Flacks, A.
Commonwealth v. Aumick, 297 A.3d 770, 781 (Pa.Super. 2023) (en banc) (quoting Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 360 (Pa.Super 2014), overruled on other grounds by Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 632 Pa. 3 , 116 A.3d 1103 (2015)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Smith, D.
Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 358-59 (Pa. Super. 2014), impliedly overruled on other issue by Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 116 A.3d 1103 (Pa. 2015).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Hobson, D.
(2×)
In considering the validity of a guilty plea colloquy, “[t]he Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure mandate pleas be taken in open court and require the court to conduct an on-the-record colloquy to ascertain whether a defendant is aware of his rights and the consequences of his plea.” Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 352 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Hetherington, R.
(2×)
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).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Luttrell, G.
LEXIS 266 , *17-18 (Pa. Super. filed June 12, 2023) (en banc) (quoting Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 360-61 (Pa. Super. 2014)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Sokolowski, R.
Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 355 (Pa. Super. 2014).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Jamison, T.
(2×)
Commonwealth v. Whelan, 392 A.2d 1362, 1364 (Pa. 1978) (plurality opinion) (“Only when compelling reasons exist, such as a court’s improper acceptance of a guilty plea, is a court permitted, after the Commonwealth’s case had commenced and a guilty plea entered, to allow the withdrawal of the plea of guilty”); Commonwealth v. Morales, 305 A.2d 11, 13 (Pa. 1973) (motion to -6- J-S23040-22 withdraw guilty plea properly denied on grounds of prejudice where plea was entered after Commonwealth’s case in chief at trial); Baez, 169 A.3d at 41 - 42 (prejudice to Commonwealth barred plea withd…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Show, A.
Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 355 (Pa. Super. 2014).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Nigro, M.
Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 355-56 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted)5, appeal denied, 105 A.3d 736 (Pa. 2014). ____________________________________________ 4 A panel of this Court previously rejected this identical issue when Appellant’s counsel raised it in an unrelated appeal.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Sinclair, D.
Kpou, supra at 1023-24 (quoting Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 351-54 (Pa. Super. 2014)) (citations, brackets, and some quotation marks 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).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Boseman, T.
(2×)
In considering the validity of a guilty plea colloquy, “[t]he Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure mandate pleas be taken in open court and require the court to conduct an on-the-record colloquy to ascertain whether a defendant is aware of his rights and the consequences of his plea.” Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 352 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citations -6- J-S27008-20 omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Wise, J.
(2×)
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.
(2×)
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. Fisher, J.
(2×)
In considering the validity of a guilty plea colloquy, “[t]he Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure mandate pleas be taken in open court and require the court to conduct an on-the-record colloquy to ascertain whether a defendant is aware of his rights and the consequences of his plea.” Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 352 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Brown, C.
(2×)
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. Dabney, R.
(2×)
In considering the validity of a guilty plea colloquy, “[t]he Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure mandate pleas be taken in open court and require the court to conduct an on-the-record colloquy to ascertain whether a defendant is aware of his rights and the consequences of his plea.” Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 352 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citations omitted), appeal denied, 105 A.3d 736 (Pa. 2014).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Starling, B.
Where, as here, a trial court has imposed a sentence, a defendant may withdraw his guilty plea “only where necessary to correct a manifest injustice.” Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 352 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Hamilton, M.
Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 352 (Pa.Super. 2014) (internal citations and quotations omitted), appeal denied, 105 A.3d 736 (Pa. 2014). -3- J.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Zamichieli, L.
Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 352 (Pa.Super. 2014) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). -4- J-S78044-18 In this case, while Appellant baldly alleges that trial counsel coerced him into pleading guilty, he does not explain how he was induced into entering a plea.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Finnefrock, C
(2×)
(Notes of testimony, guilty plea proceedings, 4/6/18 at 2-7.) In considering the validity of a guilty plea colloquy, “[t]he Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure mandate pleas be taken in open court and require the court to conduct an on-the-record colloquy to ascertain whether a defendant is aware of his rights and the consequences of his plea.” Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 352 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citations omitted), appeal denied, 105 A.3d 736 (Pa. 2014).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Bishop, K.
Instantly, that would have required Appellant to establish that the denial of a motion to withdraw his plea amounted to a manifest injustice, Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337,352 (Pa. Super. 2014). i.e., that his plea was entered unknowingly or unintelligently.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Ford, B.
Substantial prejudice exists where a defendant "obtains a full preview of the Commonwealth's evidence before deciding upon [his] trial strategy." Blango, 150 A.3d at 51 (quoting Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 353 (Pa. Super. 2014). 11 In addition, the law "presumes that a defendant who enters a guilty plea was aware of what he was doing.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Hart, J.
(2×)
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. Bressi, A.
Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 352 (Pa.Super. 2014) (internal citations and quotations omitted), appeal denied, 105 A.3d 736 (Pa. 2014).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Ankrom, G.
It is well-established that once the court has imposed a sentence, a defendant may withdraw his guilty plea “only where necessary to correct manifest injustice.” Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 352 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Peterson, G., II
Commonwealth v. Kpou, 153 A.3d 1020, 1023 (Pa.Super. 2016), quoting Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 351-354 (Pa.Super. 2014) (parallel citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Nazario, A.
Furthermore, “[SORNA] does not limit the expert’s consideration of information only to that admitted at trial or at the guilty plea proceedings.” Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 360 (Pa.Super. 2014).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Baez
The court ruled that the “request to withdraw the plea, which had been made after the dismissal of numerous key Commonwealth witnesses in reliance on the plea, was properly denied[J” Id.) see also Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 353 (Pa.Super. 2014) (substantial prejudice exists if a defendant obtains “a full preview of the Commonwealth’s evidence before deciding” to seek withdrawal and could engage in jury shopping if he decides the selected jury seems unfavorably inclined towards him). 2 In this case, three witnesses had already testified.
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. Karolski, C.
Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 355-56 (Pa. Super. 2014), appeal denied, 105 A.3d 736 (Pa. 2014). -3- J-S24026-17 Appellant acknowledges in his brief that there is no requirement for the Commonwealth “to prove all the assessment factors.”1 Appellant’s Brief at 12.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Cannon, R.
Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 352 (Pa. Super. 2014) (relying upon Commonwealth v. Lesko, 467 A.2d 307, 310 (Pa. 1983)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Cromwell, A.
Once a court has imposed a sentence, a defendant may withdraw his guilty plea “only where necessary to correct a manifest injustice.” Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 352 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Pines, G.
ANALYSIS Defendant argues that the trial co1.111 erred when it denied his post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea. "[Ajfter the court has imposed a sentence, a defendant can withdraw his guilty plea "only where necessary to correct a manifest injustice." Com. v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 352 (Pa. Super.), app. denied, 105 A.3d 736 (Pa. 2014) (quoting Com. v. Starr, 301 A.2d 592, 595 (Pa. 1973)). "[P'[ost-sentence motions for withdrawal are subject to higher scrutiny since courts strive to discourage the entry of guilty pleas as sentencing-testing devices." Prendes, 97 A.3d at 352 (quoting…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Yant, V.
Commonwealth v. Prendes, 2014 PA Super 151 , 97 A.3d 337, 355-56 (2014).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Caban, C.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 352 (Pa.Super. 2014) (internal citations and quotations omitted), appeal denied, 105 A.3d 736 (Pa. 2014).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Wakefield, D.
(2×)
(Appellant’s brief at 2.) In considering the validity of a guilty plea colloquy, “[t]he Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure mandate pleas be taken in open court and require the court to conduct an on-the-record colloquy to ascertain whether a defendant is aware of his rights and the consequences of his plea.” Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 352 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citations omitted), appeal denied, 105 A.3d 736 (Pa. 2014).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Miller, J.
(3×)
Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 355-356 (Pa.Super. 2014).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Islas
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
While our Court shared this misimpression, see, e.g., Prendes, 97 A.3d at 352 (concluding that “mere articulation of innocence [was] a ‘fair and just’ reason for the pre-sentence withdrawal of a guilty plea unless the Commonwealth has demonstrated that it would be substantially prejudiced”); Commonwealth v. Katonka, 33 A.3d 44, 46 (Pa.Super. 2011) (en banc) (same); Commonwealth v. Kirsch, 930 A.2d 1282, 1285 (Pa.Super. 2007) (noting that Forbes “indicated an assertion of innocence qualified as *1189 a ‘fair and just’ reason”), we also observed that this per se approach was “a…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Reyes, E.
(4×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
Ct. 1998)). "[A] manifest injustice occurs when a plea is not tendered knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily, and understandingly." Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 352 (Pa. Super.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Rashid, S.
Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 355-56 (Pa. Super.) (citations omitted), appeal denied, 105 A.3d 736 (Pa. 2014).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Solorio-Flores, E.
We observe that once the court has imposed a sentence, a defendant may withdraw his guilty plea “only where necessary to correct a manifest injustice.” Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 352 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citations omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Kpou
Pollard, supra. Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 351-54 (Pa.Super. 2014) (parallel citations omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Murphy, G.
Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 352-53 (Pa. Super. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Thompson, J.
Moreover, the court found Appellant’s guilty plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, and Appellant bears the burden of proving otherwise. -6- J-S75012-16 Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 352 (Pa.Super. 2014).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Blango
(2×)
For example, substantial prejudice exists if a defendant obtains “a full preview of the Commonwealth’s evidence before deciding upon [his] trial strategy.” Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 353 (Pa. Super. 2014).
Curtis BRAXTON aka William Braxton
v.
Hon. Gary S. GLAZER
v.
Hon. Gary S. GLAZER
No. 69 EM 2014.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Jul 28, 2014.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Superior Court of Pennsylvania (1)
ORDER
AND NOW, this 28th day of July, 2014, the Application for Leave to File Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED. The Prothonotary is directed to strike the jurist’s name from the caption.