State v. Alexander
2012 UT 27
Utah2012Background
- In 2007, James Alexander pled guilty to burglary with intent to commit sexual battery and moved to withdraw before sentencing, arguing rule 11 required the district court to apprise him of sexual battery elements.
- The amended charging documents and Plea Affidavit described burglary elements but did not list sexual battery elements; trial court did not discuss sexual battery during the plea colloquy beyond related rights.
- Defense counsel stated he reviewed the amended charging documents and Plea Affidavit with Alexander, and the factual basis for the plea referenced sexual battery, but did not affirm on the record that he explained the sexual battery element.
- The court accepted the plea after outlining rights; before sentencing, Alexander moved to withdraw claiming lack of knowledge of the sexual battery elements, which the district court denied.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that failure to inform the elements of the underlying sexual battery, a specific intent crime, invalidated the plea and entitled Alexander to withdraw.
- The Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari to address (1) standard for knowing and voluntary plea, (2) whether prejudice is required to withdraw, and (3) potential conflict with Hurst v. Cook; the court held that the plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made and that prejudice is not required, affirming withdrawal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 11 violation and automatic voiding | State argues rule 11 violation does not automatically render plea unknowing. | Alexander contends any failure to inform elements makes plea not knowing and voluntary. | Court held not automatic; must assess overall knowledge, record shows not knowing |
| Need for prejudice showing under rule 11(l) | State argues prejudice is required under rule 11(l). | Alexander argues no prejudice requirement under rule 11(l). | Court held prejudice is not required; rule 11(l) does not demand prejudice showing |
| Conflict with Hurst v. Cook | State maintains Hurst conflicts with the court of appeals’ approach. | Alexander asserts no conflict because issue differs. | Court held no conflict with Hurst; distinct issues |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lovell, 2011 UT 36 (Utah) (rules 11(l) prejudice requirement rejected for preserved violations)
- Bradshaw v. Stumpf, 545 U.S. 175 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2005) (validity of plea depends on understanding elements and law in relation to facts)
- Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1976) (nominally discusses understanding of charges and rights when pleading)
- Jolivet v. Cook, 784 P.2d 1148 (Utah 1989) (pre-2003 standard; discussion of elements and evidentiary basis in plea context)
- State v. Alexander, 2009 UT App 188, 214 P.3d 889 (Utah App. 2009) (court addressed rule 11 compliance and knowledge of elements in withdrawal context)
- Bluemel v. State, 2007 UT 90, 173 P.3d 842 (Utah) (rule 11 violation not necessarily constitutional violation; requirement of knowing and voluntary plea)