Brooks v. StateBrooks v. State
In Jаnuary 1979, Carol Ann Brooks, the appellant, was indicted for the unlawful sale of marijuana (CC-79-112). On April 3, 1979, the appellant pleaded guilty to this offense and her sentencing was set for the following day, April 4,1979. The appellant failed tо appear for sentencing, and the court issued an alias writ of arrest for the appellant. On May 15, 1981, the case was “withdrawn ... with leave to reinstate for good cause shown.” (S.R. 3.)
In April 1990, the appellant was indicted for trafficking in cocaine (CC-90-2289). On November 9, 1990, the court granted the State’s motion to reinstate CC-79-112. On January 8, 1991, the appеllant stipulated to a prima facie case in CC-90-2289 and the appellant was adjudged guilty of this offense. Both CC-79-112 and CC-90-2289 were set for sentencing on March 1, 1991. On that day, defense counsel moved to withdraw the appellant's guilty plea in CC 79-112, which was denied. The trial court then sentenced the appellant to five years’ imprisonment in CC-79-112 and to 15 yеars’ imprisonment in CC-90-2289, which was to run consecutively with the sentence in CC-79-112.
The only issue raised on appeal is whethеr the appellant should have been allowed to withdraw her guilty plea in CC-
“In order to make a knowing and valid guilty plea, a dеfendant must have been informed of certain facts, including the maximum and minimum sentence that may be imposed by law for the crime with which he is charged. Boykin v. Alabama,395 U.S. 238 , 244 n. 7,89 S.Ct. 1709 , 1713 n. 7,23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969); Carter v. State,291 Ala. 83 , 85,277 So.2d 896 , 897 (1973).”
Lochli v. State,
“ ‘A defendant has a constitutional right to be informed of the range of punishment prescribed by law for the offenses to which he is pleading guilty. Boykin v. Alabama,395 U.S. 238 ,89 S.Ct. 1709 ,23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969), Coleman v. Alabama,827 F.2d 1469 (11th Cir.1987). The mere fact that the court may have incorreсtly stated the maximum punishment does not end the matter. ‘The standard was and remains whether the plea represеnts a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.’ North Carolina v. Alford,400 U.S. 25 , 31,91 S.Ct. 160 , 164,27 L.Ed.2d 162 , 168 (1970). The dispositive issue in this case is whether [the defendant] would have or would not have pleaded guilty had he been given the correct advice. See Pitts v. United States,763 F.2d 197 , 201 (6th Cir.1985); Williams v. Smith,591 F.2d 169 (2nd Cir.1979).’ ”
Jackson v. State,
“ ‘Erroneous advice from counsel or the court that the maximum sentence was greater thаn that allowed by the statute does not necessarily prejudice a defendant unless the facts demonstratе that the error was likely to have altered the defendant’s decision to plead guilty. Under some circumstanсes, the actual penalty may itself be so formidable or the overstatement so small that it is improbable thе error would have had any effect. Thus, in Allen v. United States,634 F.2d 316 , 317 (5th Cir.1981), a case in which the defendant had pleaded guilty to bank robbery charges after being advised of an exaggerated penalty, we stated: ‘It is inherently incredible that a person would voluntarily submit himself to a possible thirty-five year sentence but would take his chances on getting an acquittal if he faced only a twenty-five year sentence.’
“ ‘... But whether the defendant might have decided to plead differently cannot be determined simply by measuring the degree to which the penalty was overstated. That decision must be bаsed on consideration of all the facts confronting the defendant.
[[Image here]]
“ ‘At times we have granted relief when a guilty plea was entered in reliance on an overstatement of the possible sentence. In each case, however, we have found that the defendant was erroneously induced to believe that he would benеfit from pleading guilty.’ ”
Jackson,
From our examination of the record before us, we do not find that the appellant would hаve changed her mind if she had been informed of the proper range of punishment. Jackson. The only allegation befоre us that the appellant may have changed her mind if she had been informed of the correct maximum punishment is the following statement made by defense counsel during the sentencing hearing: “If you are told that you can get uр to 30 years for
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.