Pride v. Kemp, 289 Ga. 353

Pride was indicted on rape, aggravated assault, and two counts of cruelty to children arising from an attack on his wife during a divorce, including stabbing and cutting her throat, with children present.
Defense negotiated a plea deal: Pride would receive 20 years with 13 years to serve; the trial judge refused to accept the deal.
During plea proceedings, the judge repeatedly stated she would impose a longer sentence if Pride went to trial, and even preferred to try him so she could give him what she would really like to give him.
The judge initially stated the lowest permissible sentence was 20 years, and Pride subsequently accepted the judge’s terms and pled guilty to the charged counts.
The habeas court denied Pride’s petition; the appellate court held that the judge’s extensive participation rendered Pride’s plea involuntary, reversing the denial.
The Georgia Supreme Court held that judicial participation in plea negotiations was so great as to render Pride’s guilty plea involuntary and reversed the habeas judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the trial judge’s participation render the plea involuntary?	Pride	Kemp	Yes; involuntary plea due to extensive judicial participation
Was Pride’s plea voluntarily entered under due process standards?	Pride asserts lack of voluntary choice	Kemp contends voluntariness	No; coercive influence violated due process

McDaniel v. State, 271 Ga. 552, 522 S.E.2d 648 (Ga. 1999) (judicial participation can render plea involuntary)
Gibson v. State, 281 Ga. App. 607, 636 S.E.2d 767 (Ga. App. 2006) (illicit court insertion into plea process with coercive suggestions)
Skomer v. State, 183 Ga. App. 308, 358 S.E.2d 886 (Ga. App. 1987) (judicial participation in plea negotiations can render plea involuntary)
Works v. State, 301 Ga. App. 108, 686 S.E.2d 863 (Ga. App. 2009) (no improper interference where judge did not threaten sentence after plea offer)