The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has reversed a lower court's decision that denied Jose Diego Roman Jr. the chance to withdraw his nolo contendere plea to seven sexual offenses. This ruling impacts Roman, who was sentenced to 10 to 20 years in prison, and highlights issues surrounding plea withdrawals in criminal cases.

Roman's appeal stems from a judgment entered on March 5, 2025, following his plea to charges including involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and statutory sexual assault against his ex-girlfriend's daughter. The case, docket number 1096 MDA 2025, raises questions about the rights of defendants when seeking to withdraw pleas before sentencing.

Background

Jose Diego Roman Jr. faced serious charges after a criminal complaint was filed by Officer Ethan Etter of the East Hempfield Township Police Department on November 28, 2022. The complaint detailed multiple sexual assaults against a minor victim, who was 13 years old at the time of the offenses, which occurred between 2017 and 2019. The police became involved after the victim's boyfriend encouraged her to report the incidents.

Roman entered a nolo contendere plea on March 11, 2024, during jury selection, agreeing to the charges against him. However, after the plea, he sought to withdraw it, claiming that new information had come to light that could prove his innocence. This included notarized letters from the victim's mother, L.L., and another individual, asserting that the victim had not been truthful about the allegations.

The Ruling

The Superior Court, led by Judge Bender, ruled that the trial court had erred by denying Roman's motion to withdraw his plea without holding a hearing. The court stated, "We conclude that the trial court erred by failing to hold a hearing and that the Commonwealth failed to establish that it would have been substantially prejudiced if Appellant were permitted to withdraw his plea." The ruling emphasized the importance of hearing evidence that could support claims of innocence.

The trial court had previously denied Roman's request, arguing that he was aware of the witness statements before entering his plea and that allowing the withdrawal would prejudice the Commonwealth. However, the Superior Court found that the trial court's decision was made without a complete record and without considering the new evidence presented by Roman.

Impact

This ruling sets a significant precedent regarding the rights of defendants in Pennsylvania. It underscores the importance of allowing defendants to withdraw pleas when new evidence emerges that could impact their case. The court's decision emphasizes that a fair and just legal process requires that defendants have the opportunity to present their claims of innocence.

The ruling may influence how lower courts handle similar motions in the future, particularly in cases involving serious charges like sexual offenses. It reinforces the notion that defendants should not be denied the chance to contest their pleas without a thorough examination of the evidence.

What's Next

The case has been remanded for further proceedings, meaning it will return to the lower court for a hearing on Roman's motion to withdraw his plea. It is unclear whether the Commonwealth will appeal this decision or if there are related cases pending. The outcome of the hearing could significantly affect Roman's future and the legal landscape regarding plea withdrawals in Pennsylvania.