Summary
This is a dissenting opinion by Justice Donohue in Commonwealth v. Norton concerning a defendant’s motion to withdraw a nolo contendere plea before sentencing. The dissent argues that Norton presented a plausible claim of innocence and defense strategy warranting liberal withdrawal under Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 591, particularly because the Commonwealth was not substantially prejudiced.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a defendant's assertion of innocence based on a plausible challenge to the sufficiency of the Commonwealth's evidence constitutes a fair and just reason to withdraw a guilty or nolo contendere plea before sentencing.
- Whether Pennsylvania's policy of liberally allowing presentence plea withdrawals requires consideration of the defendant's proposed defense strategy and the strength of the Commonwealth's evidence.
- Whether the trial court misapplied the governing law by treating Norton's assertion of innocence and proposed challenge to the Commonwealth's evidence as insufficient without applying a meaningful substantive standard.
Holdings
- In the dissent's view, a defendant establishes a fair and just reason to withdraw a guilty or nolo contendere plea before sentencing when the defendant presents a defense strategy that, weighed against the Commonwealth's evidence, could plausibly lead a jury to find reasonable doubt and acquit.
- The dissent would hold that the trial court misapplied the law of liberality by denying Norton's motion without adequately evaluating whether his proposed defense made his innocence claim plausible, and would therefore reverse.
Key quotations
“For the reasons discussed herein, it is my view that this standard is antithetical to the guiding principle that motions to withdraw should be liberally granted and to the rationale for liberality in this area, i.e., to protect the right to trial by jury.” (2)
“Instead, the defendant must show that his claim of innocence is “at least plausible” by making a “colorable demonstration” that granting his motion “would promote fairness and justice.”” (9)
“In my view, if a defendant presents a defense strategy which, when weighed against the strength of the Commonwealth’s evidence, could plausibly lead a jury to conclude that the Commonwealth has failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, a fair and just reason exists to permit the withdrawal of a guilty plea.” (10)
“Norton’s claim of innocence was supported by a defense strategy which, when weighed against the Commonwealth’s evidence, could plausibly result in Norton’s acquittal at trial.” (14)
Factual background
Norton entered a nolo contendere plea to criminal charges involving alleged sexual abuse of his paramour's minor granddaughter. Before sentencing, he sought to withdraw the plea while maintaining his innocence. He identified a proposed trial strategy based on challenging the alleged victim's inconsistent or incomplete memory and excluding prior-bad-acts evidence under Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 404(b), and argued that the Commonwealth's remaining evidence might be insufficient to convict.
Procedural history
The Pike County Court of Common Pleas denied Norton's presentence motion to withdraw his nolo contendere plea and entered judgment of sentence on August 7, 2015. The Superior Court affirmed on March 23, 2017. The Supreme Court granted allocatur, and this opinion dissented from the majority's disposition affirming the lower courts.
Remand instructions
The dissent would reverse the decision affirming denial of Norton's presentence motion to withdraw his nolo contendere plea. No separate remand instructions are stated.