DOJ-OGR-00004867.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 55 of 80 sentenced Zuber accordingly. However, because the law requires that “back time” sentences and new sentences be served consecutively, Zuber was legally obligated to begin serving his sentences one after the other, instead of simultaneously. /d. Zuber sought post-conviction relief, arguing that the plea as stated in open court had to be enforced, statutory law notwithstanding. On appeal to this Court, Zuber argued that he was “induced by the specific promise made by the Commonwealth,” which ultimately turned out to be a “false and empty one.” /d. We noted that plea bargaining is looked upon favorably and that “the integrity of our judicial process demands that certain safeguards be stringently adhered to so that the resultant plea as entered by a defendant and accepted by the trial court will always be one made voluntarily and knowingly, with a full understanding of the consequences to follow.” /d. [T]here is an affirmative duty on the part of the prosecutor to honor any and all promises made in exchange for a defendant’s plea. Our courts have demanded strict compliance with that duty in order to avoid any possible perversion of the plea bargaining system, evidencing the concern that a defendant might be coerced into a bargain or fraudulently induced to give up the very valued constitutional guarantees attendant the right to trial by jury. Therefore, in Pennsylvania, it is well settled that where a plea bargain has been entered into and is violated by the Commonwealth, the defendant is entitled, at the least, to the benefit of the bargain. Id. at 444 (cleaned up). We then turned to the remedy to which Zuber was entitled, which was problematic because enforcement of the plea necessarily meant compelling an outcome that was prohibited by statute. Nonetheless, because, inter alia, Zuber had “reasonably relied upon the advice of his counsel and the expression of that specific promise stated in open court by the assistant district attorney,” id. at 445, he was entitled to the benefit of the bargain. Thus, we modified Zuber’s sentence by lowering the minimum range to reflect [J-100-2020] - 54 DOJ-OGR-00004867