2011 Pa. Super. 162 - Commonwealth v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
October 2013
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Commonwealth v. Grant · Commonwealth v. Bomar · Commonwealth v. Forbes · Commonwealth v. Ellis · Commonwealth v. Anthony
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Appellant]: Good afternoon, Your Hon- or. I really do think that [the Commonwealth has] sufficient evidence to prove my innocence, and I have not been involved in any drugs or alcohol — and that I believe that the [Commonwealth] has a tape of a video camera to prove that I’m innocent. [The Court]: Where do you have that basis from? [Appellant]: Because on the unit that I’m housed on — that I’m housed in — one of these incidents that happened, there’s cameras on this unit and they point directly to the officer’s equipment, to have those cameras monitored, and the evidence would be on the camera. [[Image here]] [The Commonwealth]: It’s my understanding, there is no videotape. We have no videotape in our file. In all of the documentation that we have, there is absolutely no mention of a video. And it’s my understanding that even if there had been at the time, from 2005, being that we’re now almost in 2008, I’m sure it has been taped over or has been recorded as is customary with surveillance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[A] decision regarding whether to accept a defendant’s presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea is left to the discretion of the sentencing court. Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 591 provides: At any time before the imposition of sentence, the court may, in its discretion, permit, upon motion of the defendant, or direct, sua sponte, the withdrawal of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere .and the substitution of a plea of not guilty. Pa.R.Crim.P. 591(A) (emphasis added). There is no absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea. Commonwealth v. Flick, 802 A.2d 620, 628 (Pa.Super.2002), citing Commonwealth v. Forbes, 450 Pa. 185 , 299 A.2d 268, 271 (1973). , Nevertheless, “prior to the imposition of sentence, a defendant should be permitted to withdraw his plea for ‘any fair and just reason,’ ” provided there is no substantial prejudice to the Commonwealth. Commonwealth v. Kirsch, 930 A.2d 1282, 1284-1285 (Pa.Super.2007), quoting Forbes, 299 A.2d at 271 (Pa.1973).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[A]s in [Commonwealth v. Iseley, 419 Pa.Super. 364 , 615 A.2d 408 (1992), appeal denied, 534 Pa. 653 , 627 A.2d 730 (1993) ], here, Appellant offered “dubious grounds” for withdrawing his plea. At the hearing on his motion to withdraw, Appellant merely speculated that the Commonwealth possessed a videotape that would exonerate him. However, he was unable to produce the videotape or even describe what it would depict, other than evidence “to prove that [he’s] innocent.” N.T. Hearing, 10/17/07. Not only was this basis for withdrawing his plea questionable, but we also conclude that it did not constitute a “clear” assertion of innocence. At no point did Appellant expressly state that he did not commit the offense of aggravated assault. Accordingly, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in determining that no “fair and just” reason existed to permit Appellant to withdraw his guilty but mentally ill plea.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.