Theodore S. Danforth, Public Defender, Lancaster, for appellant.
D. Richard Eckman, Dist. Atty., Michael H. Ranck, Asst. Dist. Atty., Lancaster, for appellee.
Jones, C. J., and Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Nix and Manderino, JJ. Pomeroy, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Manderino, J., joins.
Appellant Daniel Nathaniel Mack, Jr., entered a plea of guilty to a charge of robbery with accomplice by violence and received a sentence of five to ten years in prison. On appeal to the Superior Court, he challenged the validity of his guilty plea, alleging that the guilty plea colloquy was insufficient to demonstrate that it was intelligently, knowingly and voluntarily tendered. He petitioned this Court for leave to appeal from the Superior Court's affirmance*fn1 of his judgment of sentence. We granted that petition, and now reverse the order of the Superior Court.*fn2
As we stated in Commonwealth v. Rodgers, 465 Pa. 379, 350 A.2d 815 (1976):
"The constitutional requirement for a valid guilty plea is that the record of the guilty plea hearing contain an affirmative showing that the defendant understands 'what the plea connotes and . . . its consequences.' In particular cases, this understanding has been held to include: (1) an understanding what specific acts the defendant is admitting and whether they make out the crime charged; (2) an understanding of the rights given up by choosing not to put the state to its proof; and (3) an understanding of the nature and extent of punishment which may be imposed for the crime which the defendant admits committing.
Obviously, this is not an all inclusive list, because the indicia of a voluntary, knowing and intelligent plea will vary with the circumstances of the individual case." (Footnotes omitted.)
The guilty plea colloquy in this case is inadequate in many respects. For example, appellant was questioned concerning the waiver of all of the rights associated with a jury trial, as follows:
"THE COURT: Now, you know that by entering a guilty plea you give up the ...