Hubbard v. Commonwealth
60 Va. App. 200
| Va. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Hubbard pled guilty to first-degree murder under a plea agreement capping active sentence at 67 years, five months.
- Circuit court conducted the standard plea colloquy prior to accepting the plea.
- Commonwealth proffered evidence, including Hubbard’s signed statement and witness materials, suggesting premeditation and the events of the night of the killing.
- On November 19, 2010, Hubbard moved to withdraw his guilty plea; his prior counsel moved to withdraw as counsel, which the court granted.
- New counsel was appointed and the motion to withdraw was heard on December 7, 2010, with Hubbard claiming lack of premeditation and coercion by his earlier attorneys.
- At sentencing (January 31, 2011), Hubbard renewed the motion to withdraw, the court denied it, and Hubbard was sentenced to 80 years with various suspensions and terms; Hubbard appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-sentencing standard for withdrawing plea | Hubbard asserts standard from Parris/Bottoms requires a liberal test. | Hubbard supported by Justus/Bottoms that a reasonable defense allows withdrawal. | Trial court erred by applying wrong standard; case remanded for new trial. | |
| Whether Hubbard had a reasonable defense to allow withdrawal | Hubbard had lack of premeditation as a defense. | Commonwealth argues evidence supports premeditation. | Yes; defense is not merely dilatory and is reasonably credible. | |
| Impact of Bottoms on denial of motion | Bottoms requires evaluating the proffered defense beyond colloquy | plea admissions. | Court relied on attorney representations and plea colloquy. | Circuit court failed to apply Bottoms; requires reversal. |
| Whether misapplication of law affected outcome | Court did not consider the proffered defense. | Court familiar with Bottoms; ruling unchanged. | Misapplication identified; reversible error. | |
| Effect of decision on due process/integrity of process | Withdrawal is needed to ensure justice if defense is credible. | No prejudice shown; court should deny delay. | Remand for new trial with option to plead not guilty. |
Key Cases Cited
- Parris v. Commonwealth, 189 Va. 321 (Va. 1949) (pre-sentence withdrawal standard; ends of justice; liberal approach)
- Justus v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 143 (Va. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard; liberal pre-sentence withdrawal rule)
- Bottoms v. Commonwealth, 281 Va. 23 (Va. 2011) (redefines test; requires reasonable defense, not dilatory or formal; prematurity of motive does not bar defense)
- Cobbins v. Commonwealth, 53 Va.App. 28 (Va. App. 2008) (references to good faith/delay considerations in withdrawal context)