Commonwealth v. Persinger

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that “a defendant obviously cannot be expected to plead intelligently … [without being] informed of the maximum punishment that might be imposed for his conduct.”
• sentencing court must advise defendant of the maximum sentence imposable for each conviction as well as that the sentences can be imposed consecutively
• holding where defendant was informed of maximum sentence on each count but was not informed that his sentences could be imposed consecutively, and he received a sentence that was legal but higher than he thought possible, defendant was entitled to withdraw his plea
• the goal sought to be obtained by on-record colloquy is the assurance that a defendant’s guilty plea is tendered knowingly, voluntarily and understandingly
• claim that plea was involuntary due to court’s failure to advise defendant of possibility of consecutive sentences was cognizable under PCRA
• counsel’s failure to file motion to withdraw guilty plea when defendant was not informed that his sentences could be imposed consecutively caused manifest injustice

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).