Lawrence v. Guyer
2019 MT 74
| Mont. | 2019Background
- Joseph Edward Lawrence was charged in Ravalli County with multiple sexual offenses, including two counts of soliciting sexual intercourse from minors and 243 counts of sexual abuse of children based on possession/production of child pornography.
- In 2014 Lawrence entered an Alford plea as part of a plea agreement; that conviction and sentence were vacated on appeal because the district court accepted a conditional plea before ruling on a severance motion; remanded in State v. Lawrence.
- After remand, the State reinstated the Second Amended Information; Lawrence discharged counsel, proceeded pro se, and again pleaded “guilty by Alford” to one count of sexual assault and one count of solicitation; 243 counts were dismissed; he was sentenced to 20 years with 10 suspended and credit for time served.
- Lawrence filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus asserting, inter alia, that his Alford pleas were invalid because § 46-12-204(4), MCA, prohibits courts from accepting nolo contendere pleas in sexual-offense cases and he contends Alford pleas are synonymous with nolo pleas (relying on State v. Hansen).
- The Supreme Court of Montana considered whether an Alford plea is legally equivalent to a nolo contendere plea such that § 46-12-204(4) would bar acceptance of an Alford plea in a sexual-offense case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an Alford plea is the same as a nolo contendere plea under Montana law | Lawrence: Alford plea is functionally equivalent to nolo contendere; § 46-12-204(4) therefore barred acceptance in sexual-offense cases (citing Hansen) | State: An Alford plea is a form of guilty plea under § 46-12-212(2), distinct from a nolo contendere plea; § 46-12-204(4) forbids only nolo pleas | Court: Alford plea is a guilty plea (per § 46-12-212(2)); not a nolo contendere; statute did not bar court from accepting Alford plea in sexual-offense case |
| Whether Lawrence waived other pre-plea challenges by pleading guilty | Lawrence: Raised multiple constitutional and authority challenges in habeas petition | State: Such non-jurisdictional claims are waived by a voluntary, knowing guilty plea and belong on direct appeal | Court: Claims waived; not appropriate in habeas corpus proceeding |
| Whether plain error review is available in this state habeas proceeding | Lawrence: Requested full-court plain error review under federal law | State: Plain error must be raised on direct appeal; not available here | Court: Motion for Plain Error Review denied and dismissed |
| Entitlement to credit for house arrest time | Lawrence: Sought 695 days credit for house arrest | State: Credit for home arrest applies only to revoked suspended/deferred sentences; Lawrence already received proper credit for time served | Court: Denied; not entitled to additional house arrest credit and ineligible for home arrest due to detainer/warrant |
Key Cases Cited
- N.C. v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1970) (Supreme Court upheld validity of guilty plea entered despite protestations of innocence).
- State v. Hansen, 405 P.3d 625 (Mont. 2017) (discussed in briefing; court distinguished Alford plea from nolo contendere for statutory prohibition).
- State v. Peterson, 314 P.3d 227 (Mont. 2013) (recognizes an Alford plea allows pleading guilty without admitting guilt).
- State v. Pavey, 231 P.3d 1104 (Mont. 2010) (defendants waive nonjurisdictional claims by knowingly entering guilty pleas).
- State v. Violette, 201 P.3d 804 (Mont. 2009) (same principle on waiver of pre-plea challenges).
- Gates v. Missoula County Comm'rs, 766 P.2d 884 (Mont. 1988) (habeas corpus is not the proper vehicle for certain constitutional claims).
- State v. Clemans, 422 P.3d 1210 (Mont. 2018) (plain error and structural defect claims belong on direct appeal).
Order: Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied; Motion for Plain Error Review denied and dismissed.