State v. Stiller, 225 So. 3d 1154

Background

Marilyn S. Stiller was charged with theft/exploitation of an aged/infirm person and ultimately pled guilty (Alford plea) to exploitation in violation of La. R.S. 14:93.4; sentence imposition was deferred and she was placed on active then inactive probation.
The factual basis: between Dec. 3, 2009 and July 31, 2011, Stiller, as agent under powers of attorney for Creóla McCants (elder), used those POAs to obtain funds from VA and Road Home for Stiller’s own benefit.
Court deferred imposition of sentence and ordered $52,710.20 restitution; later Stiller filed a pro se application for post-conviction relief (APCR) alleging ineffective assistance, newly discovered evidence, and perjury.
Trial court dismissed the pro se APCR as premature under La. C.Cr.P. art. 924.1, then granted an out-of-time appeal after counsel filed a corrected APCR.
On appeal Stiller argued (1) her plea was involuntary because trial counsel failed to investigate/present exculpatory evidence and misled her about diversion/plea timing, and (2) the APCR dismissal was erroneous and should have been treated as a motion to withdraw her guilty plea.
The appellate court affirmed conviction and sentence, declined to reach the ineffective-assistance-on-plea claim (record insufficient — should be raised in APCR), held the APCR dismissal was proper as premature, and ruled that a deferred sentence is nevertheless a “sentence” for purposes of motion to withdraw and appeal; remanded to correct commitment entry and to set restitution payment method based on defendant’s earning capacity.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether guilty plea was knowing/voluntary given alleged ineffective assistance	Stiller: counsel failed to investigate/present exculpatory evidence and misled her about diversion and plea timing	Counsel’s alleged failures undermined voluntariness of plea	Record insufficient to resolve on direct appeal; remand/raise in APCR for evidentiary development
Whether the trial court erred by dismissing Stiller’s APCR on June 1, 2016	Stiller: dismissal was improper; APCR should have been treated as motion to withdraw plea	Court: APCR was premature under art. 924.1; motion to withdraw unavailable after sentencing	Dismissal was proper as premature; motion-to-withdraw argument rejected because defendant was "sentenced"
Whether a deferred sentence under La. C.Cr.P. art. 893(E) constitutes a “sentence” for purposes of motion to withdraw and appealability	Stiller: (implicitly) deferred status should allow motion to withdraw / limit appellate jurisdiction	State and majority: La. C.Cr.P. art. 871(A) defines "sentence" to include penalties imposed upon a plea; jurisprudence treats deferred sentence as a sentence for appeal/withdrawal purposes	Majority: deferred imposition constitutes a "sentence"; defendant precluded from moving to withdraw under art. 559(A) and may appeal
Whether restitution procedure complied with La. C.Cr.P. art. 896.1(A)(1)	Stiller: (argues inadequate consideration of ability to pay)	State: court ordered payment plan and scheduled proof-of-payment hearings	Court found inadequate inquiry into earning capacity/assets; remanded to determine payment manner based on defendant’s finances

Key Cases Cited

North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (acceptance of guilty plea despite a defendant’s professed innocence)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance standard)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice standard for ineffective assistance claims that induce guilty pleas)
State v. Lee, 171 So.3d 1214 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (setting out plea-validity inquiries)
State v. Ferrera, 208 So.3d 1060 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (APCR vs. direct appeal ineff. assistance guidance)
State v. Lynch, 441 So.2d 732 (La.) (transcript controls over commitment when discrepancy exists)
State v. Long, 106 So.3d 1136 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (procedures for transmitting corrected commitment)