Appeal from judgment of sentence of Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Nos. 1084 and 1085 of 1973, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Kenneth Allen Hanna.
Theodore S. Danforth, Public Defender, for appellant.
Ronald L. Buckwalter, First Assistant District Attorney, and D. Richard Eckman, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Watkins, P. J., Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Van der Voort, and Spaeth, JJ. Opinion by Jacobs, J.
[ 230 Pa. Super. Page 195]
In this case, appellant contends that the on-the-record colloquy which preceded his guilty plea on August 3, 1973, was invalid under Commonwealth v. Ingram, 455 Pa. 198, 316 A.2d 77 (1974). Although we agree with appellant, we hold that Ingram should be applied only to guilty pleas tendered after January
[ 230 Pa. Super. Page 19624]
, 1974, the date of that decision. We are satisfied that the colloquy preceding appellant's guilty plea was sufficient under pre- Ingram case law, and affirm.
Appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of burglary and larceny. It appears on the record that prior to accepting the plea, the lower court confirmed the fact that appellant was represented by counsel; advised appellant that he had a right to a trial by a jury which would determine his guilt or innocence; told appellant that by pleading guilty he gave up that right; asked appellant whether he talked this over with his attorney and knew what he was doing; informed appellant of the charges against him and their respective penalties; and finally, received testimony as to the factual basis for the charges.
In Commonwealth v. Ingram, supra at 201, 316 A.2d at 79, the Supreme Court stated that "[w]hile we have not yet voided a plea merely because the presumption of innocence was not mentioned to a defendant, we have indicated that a factual basis for the plea must be demonstrated and that the defendant must understand the nature of the charges to which he is pleading." Although the Court found a sufficient "factual basis" on the record, it voided the plea because the record was insufficient to show that the defendant understood the nature of the charge against him. The Court reasoned: "In order to demonstrate that a defendant possesses such understanding, he certainly must be told more than just that he has been charged with murder or robbery, for example . . . . Thus, for an examination to demonstrate a defendant's understanding of the charge, the record must disclose that the elements of the crime or crimes charged were outlined in understandable terms." Id. at 203-204, 316 A.2d at 80.
In this case, appellant specifically attacks the colloquy because it does not appear therein that (1) he
[ 230 Pa. Super. Page 197]
was informed that he is presumed innocent until found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or that (2) he was informed of the elements ...