449 P.3d 223
Utah Ct. App.2019Background
- June 5, 2016: armed home-invasion; victims identified Deana Smith and later implicated Archuleta; Archuleta charged with multiple felonies.
- After limited inculpatory evidence, State offered plea deal: Alford pleas to amended burglary (2nd degree) and aggravated assault (3rd degree) in exchange for dismissal of other counts and State recommendation of probation.
- On Nov. 15, 2017 Archuleta entered Alford pleas; during plea colloquy he (oral and written) represented he was thinking clearly and that the plea was voluntary.
- Presentence report recommended prison; sentencing was continued several times; Archuleta later sent letters claiming innocence, requested withdrawal, and alleged he was under the influence at the plea hearing.
- At the February 7, 2018 sentencing hearing Archuleta orally moved to withdraw his plea; the court denied the motion and sentenced him to prison. Archuleta appealed, also claiming ineffective assistance of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Archuleta's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court erred by denying oral motion to withdraw guilty plea | Plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made because Archuleta was under the influence at plea hearing | Plea colloquy and written certifications show plea was knowing and voluntary; no objective evidence of impairment | Denial affirmed: Archuleta failed to meet burden; court not required to further investigate absent objective evidence |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate alleged intoxication and request plea withdrawal | Counsel failed to investigate reported jail evidence and did not pursue withdrawal motion | No record showing counsel performed deficiently; claimed evidence was unproduced or would be futile | Ineffective-assistance claim rejected: Archuleta did not carry burden to show deficient performance or prejudice |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate/allege newly discovered exculpatory witness and pursue motions (withdrawal, arrest judgment, new trial) | Post-plea witness confession would exonerate Archuleta and warranted motions | Newly discovered evidence post-plea does not necessarily undermine voluntariness; such motions would likely be futile and are not supported by authority | Rejected: no evidence in record; post-plea discovery generally insufficient to vacate plea; counsel not ineffective for failing to bring futile motions |
| Whether objective evidence (jail write-up, witness statement) required remand or record supplementation | These documents would support withdrawal and ineffective-assistance claims | Documents were not part of district-court record; rule 23B motion denied; documents insufficient to change result | Denied: records not before court on appeal and even if considered they would not establish voluntariness or counsel deficiency |
Key Cases Cited
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (explains Alford plea where defendant pleads guilty without admitting guilt)
- Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 (1977) (solemn statements in open court carry strong presumption of verity)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficiency and prejudice)
- State v. Ruiz, 282 P.3d 998 (Utah 2012) (post-amendment standard: plea withdrawal allowed only if plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made)
- State v. Bond, 361 P.3d 104 (Utah 2015) (failure to make motions that would be futile does not constitute ineffective assistance)
- Oliver v. State, 147 P.3d 410 (Utah 2006) (defendant’s assurance of clear mind may be relied on absent objective evidence of impairment)