Background
David Lombardo entered an open guilty plea to third-degree murder in Clearfield County in connection with his mother’s death. An open plea resolved guilt but left the sentence to the court. After a written colloquy and an oral hearing, the court accepted the plea and ordered a presentence investigation.
Three days before sentencing, Lombardo moved to withdraw the plea. He asserted that continued review of discovery led him to believe he could demonstrate innocence. At argument, he pointed to his mother’s serious medical conditions, an autopsy listing the cause of death as undetermined, and DNA results that he characterized as excluding him. He also maintained that he had not agreed with the Commonwealth’s factual account.
The trial court denied withdrawal and imposed 20 to 40 years in prison. At a later post-sentence hearing, Lombardo claimed he did not receive the DNA proof in time. The Commonwealth produced a discovery record showing that the public defender received a 31-page packet in August 2024, including the DNA report—months before the March 2025 plea. Lombardo appealed under Pennsylvania’s standard governing presentence withdrawal.
The Court’s Holding
The Superior Court affirmed. Judge King explained that presentence plea withdrawal is administered liberally, but it is not automatic. A defendant must offer a fair and just reason. An assertion of innocence can qualify only when it is at least plausible under the circumstances; a bare or strategically timed claim does not require withdrawal.
The timing, detail, and relationship between the claim and the Commonwealth’s evidence all mattered. Lombardo knew before pleading that the autopsy did not fix a definitive cause of death and that his mother had significant health problems. The DNA analysis was also in defense counsel’s discovery well before the colloquy. His motion did not explain what new fact emerged after the plea or how the cited evidence affirmatively established that he did not commit third-degree murder.
The panel also relied on the plea record. Lombardo acknowledged the rights he was surrendering, confirmed that he understood the open plea, and accepted the proceeding’s factual basis. His later disagreement did not undo the sworn colloquy without a colorable explanation. Because he failed to make a plausible innocence showing, the court did not need to decide whether withdrawal would substantially prejudice the Commonwealth.
Key Takeaways
- Presentence withdrawal remains discretionary even though Pennsylvania courts apply a liberal standard.
- An innocence claim must be plausible and factually developed, not merely asserted.
- Evidence known before the plea generally cannot be repackaged as a new reason without explaining its exculpatory force.
- A complete written and oral colloquy creates a substantial record against later claims of misunderstanding.
Why It Matters
Lombardo illustrates the practical effect of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s rejection of a per se rule allowing withdrawal whenever a defendant says he is innocent. Courts still favor adjudication on the merits, but they may examine whether the claim has substance, when it arose, and how it fits the known evidence.
Defense counsel considering an open plea should document discovery review, discuss alternative-cause and forensic evidence before the colloquy, and narrow any disputed factual basis. If withdrawal becomes necessary, the motion should identify the precise innocence theory and why it became viable only after the plea. Prosecutors should create a clean discovery chronology and preserve the plea proffer. Judges should address the claim’s plausibility separately from Commonwealth prejudice. The decision is unreported, but it offers a useful application of the governing framework in a high-stakes homicide case.