Brown v. State
290 Ga. 50
| Ga. | 2011Background
- Brown pleaded guilty in 1993 to financial transaction card fraud and received three years' probation.
- During the guilty plea, Brown signed a handwritten plea of guilty (nolo contendere) acknowledgment and waiver of rights form with his attorney certifying understanding.
- The form covered questions Brown answered affirmatively about understanding charges, penalties, and rights to trial, witnesses, and confrontation; Brown acknowledged not needing to admit guilt.
- At the plea hearing, the trial court questioned Brown about reviewing the waiver form and understanding the process; Brown answered affirmatively.
- The court did not conduct a colloquy on two Boykin rights; counsel merely stated he advised Brown of legal and constitutional rights.
- Brown petitioned for habeas corpus in 2008, challenging the voluntariness of his plea; the habeas court denied relief, and the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the record fully inform Brown of his Boykin rights? | Brown | Brown | No full on-record colloquy; but waiver form evidence sufficed |
| Is the waiver form plus counsel certificate enough to prove Boykin rights were explained? | Brown | Brown | Yes, the transcript plus certificate showed acknowledgment of rights |
| Did lack of colloquy about all three Boykin rights invalidate the plea? | Brown | Brown | No; substantial compliance shown by form and colloquy |
| Was there an adequate factual basis for the offense affecting Boykin analysis? | Brown | Brown | USCR 33.9 not applicable in habeas; no need for factual basis at issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Kemp, 288 Ga. 779 (Ga. 2011) (reaffirmed that lack of on-record Boykin rights info can require analysis)
- State v. Hemdani, 282 Ga. 511 (Ga. 2007) (colloquy required to prove awareness of Boykin rights; plea form alone insufficient)
- Adams v. State, 285 Ga. 744 (Ga. 2009) (no need for exact 'magic words' to convey privilege; core rights conveyed)
- Jackson v. State, 285 Ga. 840 (Ga. 2009) (separate timing of right to remain silent not controlling for Boykin rights)
- Hawes v. State, 281 Ga. 822 (Ga. 2007) (Boykin requires utmost solicitude; record must show understanding of all rights)
- Sentinel Offender Svcs. v. Harrelson, 286 Ga. 665 (Ga. 2010) (completed form alone not enough to prove voluntariness in habeas)
- King v. State, 270 Ga. 367 (Ga. 1998) (need affirmative evidence of discussion of Boykin rights)