Graham v. StateGraham v. State
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Hines
When a defendant attacks the validity of a guilty plea on direct appeal, the State has the burden of showing that the plea was made intelligently and voluntarily. Cazanas v. State, 270 Ga. 130, 131 (508 SE2d 412) (1998). The State may meet its burden by showing on the record of the guilty plea hearing that the defendant understood the rights being waived and possible consequences of the plea or by pointing to extrinsic evidence affirmatively showing that the plea was voluntary and knowing. Loyd v. State, 288 Ga. 481 (2) (b) (705 SE2d 616) (2011). A defendant may withdraw a guilty plea for any reason prior to sentencing, but can withdraw the plea after sentencing only to correct a manifest injustice. Maddox v. State, 278 Ga. 823 (4) (607 SE2d 587) (2005);
At the plea hearing, the trial court advised appellant that she had a right to a jury trial, a right to be represented and assisted by her attorney if she went to trial, a right to remain silent and to confront the witnesses against her, a right to subpoena witnesses and have them testify on her behalf, and a right against self-incrimination. The trial court also advised appellant that if she chose a jury trial she would be presumed innocent unless and until the State proved her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; that she could choose a jury trial simply by entering a plea of not guilty; and that by entering a guilty plea, she would be forfeiting
At the hearing on the motion to withdraw her guilty plea, appellant claimed that her plea was not made voluntarily; that prior to the plea hearing, she decided she wanted to go to trial; but that she ended up pleading guilty only because she was coerced to do so by her attorney, who said she would be facing the death penalty if she did not accept the State’s plea offer.2 Appellant’s attorney testified, and denied telling appellant she could receive the death penalty. In this regard, the attorney pointed out that the State never even sought the death penalty in her case, and that, if it did, he would not have been able to represent appellant because he was not qualified to handle death penalty cases.
Because the trial court was authorized to weigh the credibility of appellant and her attorney at the hearing on the motion to withdraw the guilty plea, see McGuyton v. State, 298 Ga. 351, 354-355 (1) (782 SE2d 21) (2016), and to conclude that appellant was not credible, see Pike v. State, 245 Ga. App. 518, 522 (1) (538 SE2d 172) (2000), we find no manifest abuse of discretion in the denial of appellant’s motion to withdraw her guilty plea. See McGuyton, 298 Ga. at 353 (1) (a) (“A decision on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is a matter for the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent manifest abuse.”).
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
Decided February 27, 2017.
Murder, etc. Thomas Superior Court. Before Judge Hardy.
Wade N. Krueger, for appellant.
Bradfield M. Shealy, District Attorney, James L. Prine II, Assistant District Attorney; Samuel S. Olens, Attorney General, Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Attorney General, Paula K. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.