Eric R. Rivera v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
2016 SC 000090
| Ky. | Sep 26, 2017Background
- Eric Roark Rivera was indicted on multiple counts relating to sexual abuse of two minor daughters (incest, first-degree sodomy, first-degree sexual abuse, and distribution of obscene matter). He pleaded guilty as part of a plea agreement to incest, sodomy, and sexual abuse and was sentenced to 25 years.
- Rivera attempted to withdraw his plea before sentencing alleging ineffective assistance of counsel (untimely communication of a reduced plea offer, failure to disclose or investigate key witness statements and discovery, limited meetings).
- At the Boykin colloquy Rivera affirmed the plea was voluntary, understood consequences (sex-offender registration, loss of rights), but expressed hesitation about only having 24 hours to decide after learning of the 25-year offer.
- The Commonwealth declined to extend the plea deadline because witnesses were scheduled to travel for trial. Rivera accepted the plea after consulting with counsel and admitting the factual bases for the offences.
- At an evidentiary hearing on the motion to withdraw, Rivera proffered (1) a phone recording of his sister that was excluded as hearsay, (2) discrepancy between a summary and a video of his younger daughter’s interview, and (3) limited attorney contact. The trial court found the plea voluntary and denied the motion; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Rivera's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rivera's guilty plea was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent given counsel’s alleged deficiencies | Counsel delayed telling Rivera of a 25-year offer leaving 24 hours to decide; counsel failed to investigate or disclose witness statements and discovery; limited meetings impaired decision-making | Rivera had prior knowledge of a year-old 30-year offer, consulted counsel before accepting, admitted factual basis at plea, and dissatisfaction with options does not render a plea involuntary | Court held plea was voluntary under totality of circumstances; trial court's finding not clearly erroneous |
| Whether counsel was ineffective in a way that vitiated the plea (RCr 8.10 / Strickland-type inquiry) | Counsel’s alleged errors fell below professional standards and probably affected Rivera’s decision to plead | Counsel’s performance did not fall so far below standards nor was there a reasonable probability Rivera would have gone to trial and prevailed | Court found no ineffective assistance amounting to plea invalidation; plea stands |
| Admissibility and effect of sister’s out-of-court statement offered to impeach investigation | Rivera offered a phone recording of the sister; argued it showed counsel failed to discover material impeachment evidence | Prosecutor objected: recording is hearsay and the sister was available to testify | Trial court properly excluded it as hearsay; even if considered, the recorded content was vague and would not change voluntariness result |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion to withdraw the plea | Trial court did not fairly consider the totality of circumstances; denial was arbitrary/unreasonable | Trial court held an evidentiary hearing, weighed evidence, and reasonably concluded the plea was voluntary | Appellate court found no abuse of discretion; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (establishes requirement that record show guilty plea is voluntary and intelligent)
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (defendant may plead guilty while maintaining innocence in limited circumstances)
- Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (plea must be knowingly and voluntarily made; post-plea miscalculation of case strength does not automatically vitiate plea)
- Bronk v. Commonwealth, 58 S.W.3d 482 (Ky. 2001) (totality of circumstances in assessing plea voluntariness; ineffective-assistance framework applied to plea decisions)
- Pridham v. Commonwealth, 394 S.W.3d 867 (Ky. 2012) (motion to withdraw plea requires particularized factual allegations)
- Edmonds v. Commonwealth, 189 S.W.3d 558 (Ky. 2006) (standard of review: trial court findings on plea voluntariness reviewed for clear error; denial of motion to withdraw for abuse of discretion)
- Foley v. Commonwealth, 17 S.W.3d 878 (Ky. 2000) (ineffective assistance discussed in terms of losing probable victory)
- Rodriguez v. Commonwealth, 87 S.W.3d 8 (Ky. 2002) (entitlement to hearing when plea voluntariness alleged)
- Kotas v. Commonwealth, 565 S.W.2d 445 (Ky. 1978) (validity of plea judged from totality of circumstances)