Lead Opinion
In November 2005, Michael Lejeune pleaded guilty to murder, was convicted upon his plea, and was sentenced to imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole. Years later, Lejeune filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that his plea was invalid because, he said, he never was advised that, if he instead had insisted upon a trial, he could not have been compelled at that trial to testify against himself. Following an evidentiary hearing, the habeas court denied his petition. Lejeune appeals,
1. To properly form the basis for a judgment of conviction, a guilty plea must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. Brady v. United States,
In its order denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the habeas court proceeded from the premise that the Warden had the burden of proving that Lejeune entered his guilty plea voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently, and to carry that burden over the allegations of the petition in this case, the habeas court reasoned, the Warden had to show that Lejeune understood at the time of his plea that, if he had insisted upon a trial, he could not have been compelled at trial to testify for the prosecution. The habeas court concluded in the end that the Warden carried that burden. As a basis for its conclusion, the habeas court appears to have relied in significant part on the fact that the prosecution of Lejeune spanned several years, and it involved numerous pretrial hearings, a trial by jury in March 2005 that ended in a mistrial, and a second trial by jury in November 2005 that was underway when Lejeune pleaded guilty. Whether or not Lejeune was advised of his privilege against self-incrimination at or in connection with the proceeding in which he entered his plea, the habeas court found that he already had an adequate understanding of the constitutional privilege by virtue of earlier events in the course of his prosecution. On appeal, Lejeune contends that a number of these earlier events on which the habeas court relied do not actually support its finding, and we agree.
The habeas court also relied on the testimony of attorney Brian Steel — who represented Lejeune in connection with his second trial, but withdrew prior to Lejeune entering his guilty plea — which, according to the habeas court, showed that Steel advised Lejeune of his “Boykin rights.” But as Lejeune argues on appeal, the habeas court appears to have taken a portion of that testimony out of context and misconstrued it. When Steel was deposed in connection with the habeas proceeding, he was asked on direct examination about the consultations that he had with Lejeune in connection with the second trial, especially whether he and Lejeune discussed that Lejeune could choose whether to testify at the trial. In response to these questions, Steel said:
It wasn’t ripe yet because [Lejeune] didn’t actually — it wasn’t the defense case in either trial. I don’t know. I mean, I’m very thorough with my clients. So I don’t know. I know I did discuss what we would call Boykin . . . rights with him because he never accepted a guilty plea when I was defending him.
This is the testimony on which the habeas court relied. But Steel subsequently testified that he never advised Lejeune about the constitutional rights that he would waive by virtue of a guilty plea
2. Because these findings of the habeas court find no support in the record, Lejeune argues that the Warden failed to prove that his plea was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. Maybe that is so, but it matters only to the extent that the Warden must bear the burden of proving these things. Beginning with Purvis v. Connell,
Our law appears always to have recognized a presumption of regularity with respect to the final judgments of courts of general jurisdiction, see LeMaster v. Orr,
But beginning with Purvis, we departed from the usual and settled rule in habeas cases in which the petitioner claims that his plea was not voluntary, knowing, and intelligent because he entered it without an adequate understanding of an essential constitutional protection, such as the privilege against self-incrimination. Just a few years before Purvis, the United States Supreme Court held in Boykin that the United States Constitution requires the State to bear the burden of showing on direct review that a plea was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. See
We are aware of cases in this state holding that since there is a presumption in favor of the validity of a sentence . . . especially where based upon a plea of guilty, the burden of overcoming this is upon the prisoner. However, this presumption can no longer be indulged with the advent of the Boykin case ....
In the meantime, the United States Supreme Court decided Parke v. Raley,
To import Boykin’s presumption of invalidity into this very different context [of a collateral attack on a conviction] would, in our view, improperly ignore another presumption deeply rooted in our jurisprudence: the “presumption of regularity” that attaches to final judgments, even when the question is waiver of constitutional rights.
As we noted earlier, that reasoning is quite clearly erroneous. Throughout our history, Georgia law has presumed the regularity of final judgments of conviction, even when those judgments were challenged by way of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In Purvis, we departed from the presumption of regularity, but only because we concluded from Boykin that the United States Constitution required such a departure.
Instead, our dissenting colleagues would adhere to Purvis and its progeny as a matter of stare decisis. But even the venerable doctrine of stare decisis does not permit us to persist in an error of federal constitutional law. See Oregon v. Hass,
A consideration of the factors that inform the application of stare decisis leads to the conclusion that Purvis and its progeny ought to be overruled. First, because those precedents are based on a misunderstanding of federal constitutional law, their error is not capable of correction by the People of this State. Second, the reasoning of those precedents is quite obviously unsound, as shown by Parke. Third, when the courts speak of reliance interests in the context of stare decisis, they refer to contract interests, property rights, and other substantive rights. Jackson,
3. “We recognize that, given the clear, though incorrect, mandate of our overruled case law, [Lejeune] may be caught somewhat by surprise with this opinion.” Sosniak v. State,
Notes
Lejeune timely filed an application for a certificate of probable cause to appeal from the decision of the habeas court, see OCGA § 9-14-52, and we granted that application.
Lejeune never alleged that his plea was not a voluntary expression of his own choice, that he did not understand the nature of the case against him, nor that he entered his plea without understanding the other constitutional rights that he would have been afforded at trial. His habeas petition was based exclusively on the allegation that he never was adequately advised of his privilege against self-incrimination.
To be sure, Parke involved a recidivist sentencing proceeding in which an earlier judgment of conviction fell under collateral attack, and Parke does not directly address the burden of proof with respect to the voluntariness of a plea in habeas. But like the collateral attack in Parke, a proceeding in habeas corpus “is a collateral attack that is separate and distinct from direct review, and occurs only after a prisoner has failed to obtain relief by direct appeal. It is not an extension of direct appeal: Habeas corpus always has been a collateral remedy, providing an avenue for upsetting judgments that have otherwise become final. . . .” Gibson v. Turpin,
The Byrd majority cited Bowers,
Justice Hunstein concurred, acknowledging that no constitutional law required the State to bear the burden in habeas, but accepting that allocation of the burden as reflecting “the better policy position.” Byrd,
To the extent that the dissent points to the Georgia Constitution, neither Purvis nor any of its progeny suggests that the Purvis rule is one of state constitutional law.
The dissent suggests that our overruling of Purvis and its progeny is some sort of novel departure from the usual rule of stare decisis. But this Court - unanimously, in mosteases -has not hesitated to overrule longstanding precedents when it has become apparent that they are out of step with recent developments in federal constitutional law, even when our precedents were not themselves, strictly speaking, precedents of federal constitutional law, and instead were only influenced by our understanding of federal constitutional law. See, e.g., Hudson,
We express no opinion about the nature or quality of the evidence required to carry the burden, and in particular, the extent to which a plea transcript alone, extrinsic evidence, or some combination of the two may be sufficient. See Parke,
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent because the opinion of the majority upturns well-established and well-founded Georgia precedent, and, under the facts of this case, will result in a legal distinction without an effective difference.
Lejeune was indicted for two counts of malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, concealing the death of another, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, and the State sought the death penalty. Lejeune’s first trial ended in a mistrial, and it was in the midst of his second trial that Lejeune entered his negotiated plea of guilty to one count of malice murder and was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Brian Steel and August Siemon represented Lejeune at both trials, with Steel acting as lead counsel. However, Steel withdrew from the case prior to Lejeune entering his guilty plea, and Siemon alone represented Lejeune at the plea hearing. Lejeune filed the present habeas corpus petition, alleging that his guilty plea was not entered into voluntarily and intelligently because the trial court failed to advise him of all of the constitutional rights he would be waiving by entering the plea. Following a hearing on the petition, the habeas court rejected Lejeune’s challenge to the plea and denied the requested relief. This Court granted Lejeune’s application for a certificate of probable cause to appeal the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus expressly to determine whether the habeas court properly concluded that Lejeune’s plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered. And, that is what this Court should do.
When a criminal defendant challenges the constitutionality of his guilty plea, it is the State’s burden to show that the plea was informed and voluntary, including that the defendant made an articulated waiver of the three constitutional rights set forth in Boykin v. Alabama,
This Court’s position was not diminished by the Supreme Court’s 1992 decision in Parke v. Raley,
As noted by Justice Hunstein in her concurrence in Byrd v. Shaffer, a habeas corpus proceeding filed by a defendant who pled guilty to the challenged conviction may be different from the situation of a recidivist defendant, in that a habeas petitioner challenging the voluntariness of a guilty plea can raise the issue only if it has not been procedurally defaulted; when a timely direct appeal was not brought from a conviction on a guilty plea, habeas corpus is the only remedy for a criminal defendant who subsequently asserts that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered based on a matter
Equally problematic is the majority’s abandonment of precedent in this case as it is in flagrant disregard of the important principle of stare decisis and promotes a practice of singular case rule. This Court, and in fact the author of the majority, most recently affirmed the great significance of stare decisis in our system of justice:
As a general rule, American courts adhere to the principle of stare decisis, which directs the courts to stand by their prior decisions. We have noted that the application of the doctrine of stare decisis is essential to the performance of a well-ordered system of jurisprudence. As the United States Supreme Court has explained, very weighty considerations underlie the principle that courts should not lightly overrule past decisions. Among these are the desirability that the law furnish a clear guide for the conduct of individuals, to enable them to plan their affairs with assurance against untoward surprise; the importance of furthering fair and expeditious adjudication by eliminating the need to relitigate every relevant proposition in every case; and the necessity of maintaining public faith in the judiciary as a source of impersonal and reasoned judgments.
Smith v. State,
Even if we were to overrule our long standing precedent in this regard, and shift the burden to the petitioner, this is not the appropriate vehicle in which to do so, and remand the case for yet another hearing, in that the undisputed record shows a Boykin violation. Regardless of who technically had the burden, there was an extensive hearing below, and neither the record of the plea proceeding nor the
As the habeas court expressly concluded, the transcript of the guilty plea hearing clearly reflects that the plea court informed Lejeune of his rights to trial by jury and to confront witnesses against him, and that Lejeune waived these rights. But, the record also plainly reveals that while the plea court did inform Lejeune that he would be giving up the right to testify during a jury trial, it did not tell him that he would be forfeiting the privilege not to incriminate himself upon entering a guilty plea.
The habeas court’s conclusions were premised upon express findings, which included in relevant part: prior to Lejeune’s initial jury trial and at three separate hearings pursuant to the Unified Appeal Procedure at which Lejeune was present, his counsel informed
This Court reviews a habeas court’s findings of fact for clear error, and as the majority concedes, certain pivotal findings of fact by the habeas court in this case do not survive such a standard of review. See Denson v. Frazier,
First, as stated in the majority, the habeas court’s findings regarding Lejeune’s exercise of his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent at hearings prior to his first trial do not support the habeas court’s conclusions as a matter of law. The phrases “right to remain silent” and “right against self-incrimination” can be synonymous for the purpose of satisfying Boykin if it is evident that the reference is to the right to remain silent at trial. Campos v. State,
Second, the habeas court’s finding that Lejeune was informed about his choice to testify prior to his first trial does not lend legal support for sustaining the guilty plea. Again, for the purposes of Boykin, informing a defendant of his Sixth Amendment right to testify at trial does not equate to knowledge by him of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination which is being waived by the plea proceeding. Hawes v. State, supra at 825.
The cited statements about attorney Siemon’s conversations with Lejeune are at best vague, general, and speculative, and therefore, do not serve as a legal basis for upholding the plea under Boykin. See Lawrence v. State,
Finally, as also conceded by the majority, the facially favorable finding by the habeas court that in discussion with Lejeune in preparation for his second trial, attorney Steel “did discuss what we would call Boykin . . . rights with [Lejeune]” does not withstand scrutiny either. The habeas court expressly noted that the discussion was in the context of whether Lejeune would testify at trial, which might well be insufficient to satisfy the requirements of Boykin with respect to the right not to incriminate oneself. Hawes v. State, supra at 825. Even more significantly, as highlighted by the majority, examination of this fragment of a deposed statement by Steel in the context of the complete sentence and of Steel’s entire deposition testimony makes plain that it was not intended to be an affirmative statement, but quite the contrary, and that at no point did he advise Lejeune that by entering a guilty plea he would waive certain rights. The cross-examination of Steel left no doubt that Steel’s direct testimony was negative on the question of whether he had advised Lejeune of the Boykin rights. Thus, the habeas court’s positive finding in regard to the statement is clearly erroneous, and therefore, not valid factual support for the plea.
In a guilty plea proceeding, there must be affirmative evidence that a defendant’s rights were conveyed to him, including that the right against compulsory self-incrimination would be waived by
[t]he waiver of constitutional rights that occurs when a plea of guilty is entered is so great that it demands that utmost solicitude of which courts are capable in canvassing the matter with the accused to make sure he has a full understanding of what the plea connotes and of its consequences.
Bowers v. Moore,
Thus, even if the evidentiary burden was Lejeune’s, he has carried it, and the judgment of the habeas court should not stand for that reason. The majority seeks to justify remand, in part, to “afford Lejeune a fair opportunity’ to once again “carry that burden.” This is disingenuous at best. And, it is difficult to fathom the fairness, or indeed reasonableness, in requiring either the prisoner or the State to again plow the same ground of a plea made nearly a decade ago, the circumstances of which have not changed. Neither the case at bar nor the judicial process is served by further hearing in this matter.
I am authorized to state that Justice Benham and Justice Hunstein join in this dissent.
The State’s burden can be met by showing on the record that the defendant was aware of his rights and that he waived those rights, or by using extrinsic evidence that shows
The majority opinion concludes that Purvis and its progeny incorrectly apply federal constitutional law, and criticizes this dissent as not attempting to argue otherwise. But, the linchpin of the majority’s conclusion that this Court has for decades misapplied federal constitutional law is its unbounded reading of Parke v. Raley as a mandate to burden shift when a Boykin challenge is made in a habeas proceeding. Moreover, the majority’s criticism fails to take into account any impact of the constitutional law of this State. A state high court certainly has the right to interpret its State Constitution to grant individuals more rights than those provided by the Federal Constitution. Powell v. State,
The plea judge testified by deposition in the habeas corpus proceeding that she was not aware of any conversations during which Lejeune would have been advised of the rights he was waiving by entering the guilty plea; that if a plea was entered in the midst of a trial, the typical practice was to have any conversations prior to entry of the plea outside the judge’s presence and to then “go on the record” for entry of the plea; and that the judge would not participate in pre-trial negotiations or discussions, and would not have off-the-record conversations about “who gets told what” during the course of the plea.
In so doing, the habeas court acknowledged that this Court has rejected the proposition that the State may demonstrate the voluntariness of a plea by showing that the defendant had prior experience in the criminal justice system. See State v. Futch, supra at 301 (2); Foskey v. Battle, supra at 482 (1); Bazemore v. State, supra at 162 (1).
At the habeas hearing, Siemon testified that other than possible sentences, he was “not sure” of what else he advised Lejeune regarding entry of the guilty plea; that he “essentially” told Lejeune that he would be waiving certain rights by entering the plea but did not “recall specifically” what he advised Lejeune “in terms of any rights that he would have been waiving”; and that as a general practice, he relied on plea forms to advise clients of the specific rights they were about to waive upon entering a guilty plea. In this case, there is no plea form in the record before the habeas court. When asked what he would do without a plea form, Siemon said “I can’t, I don’t think there’s -1 don’t think I have a usual practice for when there’s no plea form because it’s so rare not to have a plea form. I think if I had a case where there was no plea form, I would figure that the judge was going to read all of those rights in the record, on the record, and that’s why there was no plea form.”