State v. Davies
164 N.H. 71
N.H.2012Background
- Davies was charged with two counts of false imprisonment and one count of simple assault arising from a single domestic-violence incident; he was 19 with a GED at arraignment on June 1, 2009.
- At plea discussions prior to arraignment, Davies indicated intent to plead guilty and signed an acknowledgement and waiver of rights form.
- During the plea hearing, the court confirmed Davies understood the charges, allowed him to proceed pro se, and Davies stated he understood his rights and the charges, then pleaded guilty.
- The court imposed a negotiated suspended sentence requiring Davies to complete a batterer’s evaluation within 60 days; Davies did not complete it.
- A state motion to impose the suspended sentence was filed; later, an agreement stayed the motion conditioned on Davies’ completion of the evaluation and compliance with recommendations.
- In November 2010 Davies moved to vacate his pleas, challenging the sufficiency of the plea colloquy and the alleged defect in the false-imprisonment counts; the trial court vacated the two false-imprisonment pleas but left the simple assault plea intact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the plea to simple assault knowing and voluntary? | Davies contends the court failed to explain essential elements. | Davies argues the record shows insufficient understanding. | Record showed affirmative inquiry; plea valid. |
| Did the trial court's Boykin-compliant colloquy satisfy due process under State and Federal constitutions? | Davies argues the colloquy was deficient regarding elements and understanding. | State argues the court adequately explained and Davies affirmed understanding. | Court affirmatively inquired; burden remained on Davies, but record supports knowing, voluntary plea. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dansereau, 157 N.H. 596 (2008) (guilty plea must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
- State v. Arsenault, 153 N.H. 413 (2006) (elements must be explained; real notice of true charge required)
- State v. Kinne, 161 N.H. 41 (2010) (burden-shifting framework for collateral plea challenges; trial court inquiry essential)
- State v. Thornton, 140 N.H. 532 (1995) (due process requires real notice of the true nature of the charge)
- Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637 (1976) (plea must provide real notice of charge and be voluntary)
- State v. Offen, 156 N.H. 435 (2007) (collateral challenge framework; record adequacy governs burden shift)