Commonwealth v. Root

Pennsylvania Superior Court · 2018 · Criminal Law

179 A.3d 511 (2018)

Updated August 1, 2026

Criminal Lawplea agreementsPCRAineffective assistance of counselsentencingnegotiated pleaspecific sentencewithdrawal of plea

Facts

Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea under which he would plead to four counts, the remaining charges would be nol prossed, and he would receive an aggregate sentence of two to four years' imprisonment followed by twelve years' probation. At the plea hearing, the trial court accepted the plea but stated it was not committing to the sentencing term and told Appellant that if it imposed more time than agreed upon, it would not permit him to withdraw the plea. At sentencing, the court imposed two to fourteen years' imprisonment instead of the agreed sentence. After sentencing, counsel pursued only reconsideration, then told Appellant that nothing further could be done and that an appeal would be unsuccessful, and no direct appeal or motion to withdraw the plea or enforce the agreement was filed.

Issue

When a trial court accepts a negotiated guilty plea that includes a specific sentencing term but later imposes a harsher sentence, is the defendant entitled either to the benefit of the bargain or to the opportunity to withdraw the plea? If so, was plea counsel ineffective for failing to advise and pursue those remedies on Appellant's behalf?

Rule

Where a negotiated plea agreement includes a specific sentence, the court has discretion to accept or reject the agreement. If the court accepts the plea and later imposes a sentence greater than the negotiated sentence, the defendant is entitled either to receive the bargained-for sentence or to have the option to withdraw the guilty plea; counsel is ineffective if counsel lacks a reasonable basis for failing to advise or pursue those available post-sentence remedies, and prejudice exists where the defendant loses the benefit of the bargain after surrendering the right to trial.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Pittsburgh, Devin Cole agreed with prosecutors to plead guilty to two counts in exchange for dismissal of the remaining charges and a fixed sentence of 18 to 36 months' imprisonment. At the plea hearing, the judge accepted the plea but warned Devin that the court was not bound by the agreed sentence and would not allow him to withdraw the plea if a longer sentence were imposed; at sentencing, the judge imposed 18 to 60 months.

If Devin later challenges the sentence through post-conviction proceedings, which argument is strongest under the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority held that where the plea agreement includes a specific sentence, the court may accept or reject the agreement. If the court accepts the plea and later imposes a greater sentence, the defendant must receive either the benefit of the bargain or the option to withdraw the plea. The judge's warning that the court was not bound does not eliminate that withdrawal right after acceptance.