Francisco Hernandez, s/k/a Francisco Alberto Hernandez v. Commonwealth of Virginia
67 Va. App. 67
| Va. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Hernandez was charged with multiple felonies arising from May 28, 2011 offenses and an unrelated July 2011 assault on an officer; competency and sanity evaluations were ordered.
- Dr. Earle Williams first reported (Feb 2012) that Hernandez was not competent and later opined sane for the May 2011 offenses, but in a March 2012 report concluded Hernandez was legally insane during the relevant May 24–30, 2011 period.
- Hernandez initially pled guilty in May 2012 but, after counsel raised the conflicting Williams reports, the court allowed withdrawal and appointed Dr. William Pappadake, who found Hernandez sane for the felonies; Hernandez then entered Alford pleas in June 2013.
- New counsel later discovered apparent errors in Williams’s reports (case numbers, timing) and argued these showed a viable insanity defense that counsel had mistakenly advised was unavailable; counsel admitted she had misadvised Hernandez prior to the June 2013 pleas.
- At a hearing, Williams testified that additional information changed his opinion to insane for the May 2011 period; Pappadake testified Hernandez knew right from wrong and was not legally insane at the time of the felonies.
- The trial court credited Pappadake, denied Hernandez’s motion to withdraw his second set of guilty pleas, and Hernandez appealed arguing the pleas were entered based on material mistake and erroneous advice of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hernandez) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hernandez may withdraw pre-sentencing guilty pleas because they were induced by counsel's mistaken legal advice about the insanity defense | Counsel misadvised Hernandez that an insanity defense was unavailable after Dr. Pappadake’s report, so pleas were inadvised and made under an honest mistake of material fact | Hernandez knew of conflicting reports before pleading; any mistake was not material and Hernandez voluntarily pleaded | Reversed: counsel’s admitted erroneous legal advice about availability of the insanity defense made the pleas inadvised; withdrawal should have been allowed |
| Whether Hernandez proffered a reasonable (prima facie) insanity defense justifying withdrawal | Williams’s March 2012 report supported legal insanity for the May 2011 offenses; that proffer is a legally cognizable defense for a jury to decide | The defense is merely a credibility challenge to expert testimony and thus not reasonable | Reversed: a defendant need only proffer facts supporting a legally recognized defense; credibility is for the factfinder, so the insanity proffer was reasonable |
| Whether the trial court could resolve credibility of competing experts at the withdrawal stage | Trial court improperly weighed experts and resolved credibility to deny withdrawal | Commonwealth argued trial court properly found Pappadake more credible and denied relief | Reversed: at threshold withdrawal stage, the court should determine only if a prima facie defense exists, not resolve credibility |
| Whether the Commonwealth suffered prejudice from delay that would bar withdrawal | No specific record evidence of prejudice; mere passage of time speculative | Commonwealth asserted possible witness unavailability after several years | Reversed: prejudice must be supported by the record; speculation insufficient to outweigh defendant’s right to withdraw |
Key Cases Cited
- Parris v. Commonwealth, 189 Va. 321 (Virginia 1949) (grounds for allowing withdrawal of plea entered by mistake, misunderstanding, fraud, or involuntariness)
- Cobbins v. Commonwealth, 53 Va. App. 28 (Va. Ct. App. 2008) (two-part test for pre-sentencing plea withdrawal: good-faith basis and proffer of reasonable basis to contest guilt)
- Pritchett v. Commonwealth, 61 Va. App. 777 (Va. Ct. App. 2013) (erroneous legal advice from counsel can justify withdrawal)
- Hubbard v. Commonwealth, 60 Va. App. 200 (Va. Ct. App. 2012) (defendant entitled to present reasonable defense; court should not pre-evaluate credibility at withdrawal stage)
- Williams v. Commonwealth, 59 Va. App. 238 (Va. Ct. App. 2011) (standard of review for denial of motion to withdraw plea)
- Small v. Commonwealth, Va. (Va. 2016) (prejudice to Commonwealth is a relevant factor in plea-withdrawal analysis)
- Justus v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 143 (Va. 2007) (trial court should grant withdrawal when proffered facts legally preclude guilt)
- Bottoms v. Commonwealth, 281 Va. 23 (Va. 2011) (withdrawal required where proffered facts support asserted defense meriting presentation to factfinder)