337 Ga. App. 280
Ga. Ct. App.2016Background
- Marion S. Hayes pleaded guilty (Alford plea) to burglary, possession of tools for the commission of a crime, and misdemeanor obstruction; aggravated assault count was nolle prossed.
- He was sentenced to 20 years (serve 7, balance on probation) on burglary, with concurrent terms on other counts.
- Hayes filed a pro se motion for an out-of-time appeal, which the trial court granted when the State did not respond.
- Hayes argued his plea was involuntary because the trial judge improperly participated in plea discussions by indicating how he would sentence if Hayes proceeded to trial.
- The judge told Hayes that because of recidivist notices he would “serve every day” of a 20-year sentence if convicted at trial, effectively stating he would not probate or suspend any portion of the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial judge’s comments during plea discussions rendered Hayes’s plea involuntary under Rule 33.5(A) | Hayes: judge improperly participated in plea negotiations by stating he would impose and require service of the full 20-year sentence if Hayes went to trial, coercing the plea | State: judge merely informed Hayes of maximum exposure and parole ineligibility; did not remove judicial discretion | Court: Reversed — judge’s statements amounted to impermissible participation that could skew defendant’s decision-making and rendered the plea involuntary; convictions and sentence reversed and remanded for new proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1970) (recognition of Alford plea doctrine)
- McDaniel v. State, 271 Ga. 552 (Ga. 1999) (trial judge’s statements during plea discussions can render plea involuntary)
- Gibson v. State, 281 Ga. App. 607 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006) (reversal where judge advised he would not give same sentence considerations if defendant went to trial)
- Skomer v. State, 183 Ga. App. 308 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987) (reversal where judge said probation might be given on guilty plea but not if defendants went to trial)
- Pritchett v. State, 267 Ga. App. 303 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004) (interpretation that subsections of OCGA § 17-10-7 must be read together; judge retains discretion to probate/suspend)
- Carter v. State, 175 Ga. App. 38 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985) (subsection (c) prohibits parole but does not eliminate trial judge’s discretion to probate under subsection (a))