Com. v. Zuccher, J.

J-A26006-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
JAMES L. ZUCCHER,
Appellant No. 1730 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 1, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer County
Criminal Division at No(s):
CP-43-CR-0000478-2014
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., RANSOM, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED OCTOBER 14, 2016
Appellant, James L. Zuccher, appeals from the October 1, 2014
judgment of sentence, imposed after he entered a plea of nolo contendere to
the offenses of Driving Under the Influence (DUI), 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(a)(1),
and Fleeing or Eluding, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3733(a). Appellant was sentenced to a
minimum of five (5) days’ house arrest to a maximum of six (6) months of
parole and a $300 fine for the DUI offense, and a concurrent sentence of six
(6) months of probation for the Fleeing or Eluding offense.
On appeal to this Court, Appellant avers that the trial court should
have permitted him to withdraw his nolo contendere plea. Appellant argues
that the plea was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent and/or was the result
of undue influence. The Commonwealth concedes that Appellant is entitled
J-A26006-16
to a vacation of his sentence and the withdrawal of his guilty plea. See
Commonwealth’s Brief at 2-3.
Our Supreme Court “has maintained that the entry of a plea that is
unknowing, in the sense that the defendant lacks a basic understanding of
the legal principles giving rise to the criminal responsibility that he is
accepting, is a manifest injustice….” Commonwealth v. Flanagan, 854
A.2d 489, 502 (Pa. 2004) (internal citations omitted). Further, there must
be a discussion of the factual basis supporting the plea during the plea
colloquy, in part to prevent mistaken pleas to offenses. Id. at 493, 500(internal citations omitted). Here, both parties agree that Appellant did not
enter a knowing, voluntary, or intelligent plea. According to both parties,
Appellant demonstrated that he did not agree to plead nolo contendere to
Fleeing or Eluding, and no colloquy established a factual basis for the plea to
that offense. See Appellant’s Brief at 13-14, 15-16; Commonwealth’s Brief
at 1-3. We agree. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of sentence and
remand for further proceedings.
Judgment of sentence vacated. Case remanded. Jurisdiction
relinquished.
-2-
J-A26006-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/14/2016
-3-