State v. BoatrightState v. Boatright
This is аn out of time appeal from a conviction of manslaughter, based on a guilty plea, and a sentence of 15 years imprisonment. On appeal defendant questions the trial court‘s denial of his motion to withdraw thе guilty plea and the trial court‘s compliance with the sentencing guidelines of
Facts
The fatal shooting underlying the conviction occurred at 2:00 a. m. in the manager‘s office of a motel where defendant was living. The facts lеading up to the shooting are by no means clearly established.1
Several weeks before the incident the victim and a woman named Doris Blackwell separated after having lived together for several years. Doris Blackwell and her daughter apparently began residing at the motel, and defendant began seeing Doris Blackwell on a regular basis. According to defendant‘s version of the facts, the victim on several occasions threatened to kill defendant, Doris Blackwell and Doris’ daughter. Defendant also claimed that the victim had beaten Doris on previous occasions and had once shot at her and her daughter.
At about 3:00 on the afternoon of the incident defendant and the victim were drinking in the bar of the motel. After an argument concerning defendant‘s relationship with Doris Blackwell, the victim threatened to kill defendant, and defendant left the bar. Howеver, defendant thereafter returned, and the two men continued drinking in the bar throughout the evening despite several other confrontations. Around 8:00 p. m. defendant went to his room to obtain a pistol after the victim threatened him with a knife. When defendant returned to the bar, the victim again had his knife and again made threatening statements. The two nevertheless remained in the bar until about 2:00 a. m., when defendant went to the motel manager‘s office. The shooting ensued soon thereafter.
At the guilty plea the trial judge thoroughly discussed with defendant on the record the elements of the offense and the rights being relinquished by the plea. The judge also cautioned dеfendant regarding the maximum penalty and made it very clear that there was no prior agreement regarding the sentence to be imposed. Thus, the record clearly establishes that defendant entered his plea fully aware that the trial court could impose the full range of sentences provided by law. See
When defense counsel discovered just before sentencing that the trial court intended to impose a 15-year sentence, he orally moved that defendant be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea. The trial court denied the motion and imposed a sentence of 15 years imprisonment at hard labor.
Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea
Counsel for defendant, an attorney with 15 years of experience, advised defendant to pleаd guilty to manslaughter based on his assessment of the strength of the state‘s case. His competency has not been challenged, and there has been no showing that his representation fell below the range of comрetency demanded of attorneys in criminal cases. See State v. Beatty, 391 So.2d 828 (La.1980); State v. Myles, 389 So.2d 12 (La.1980); United States v. Moore, 432 F.2d 730 (3rd Cir. 1970). Counsel undoubtedly decided, after assessing the evidence, that the circumstances did not warrant going to trial on the first degree murder indictment, thereby risking expоsure to a mandatory life sentence.2 In choosing between the two unpleasant options (going to trial on the first degree murder indictment or pleading guilty to manslaughter), defendant acknowledged his criminal responsibility fоr unjustifiably taking the life of a fellow human being. Rather than requiring the state to prove that the killing was not committed in self defense,3 defendant chose to minimize his penalty exposure by entering a guilty plea. The evidence whiсh defendant would have presented in support of his plea of self defense then became proof merely of extenuating circumstances properly urged in mitigation of penalty.4
Since there was no sрecific agreement as to the length of the sentence with either the trial judge or the district attorney who negotiated the plea, and since the trial judge at the time of the guilty plea notified defendant of the possible range of sentences and stated very clearly that he was not promising any particular sentence, defendant was fully aware that the sentence would depend upon the trial judge‘s assessment of the dеfendant‘s character and the nature of the offense, and that such assessment would be based primarily upon the presentence investigation report. Upon learning on the morning of sentencing of the penаlty the trial judge intended to impose, defense counsel orally moved to withdraw the guilty plea, stating that he was “completely set aback” by the severity of the penalty and “this is why I am making this oral motion“.
Dissatisfaction with the sentence is not a basis for withdrawal of a guilty plea. State v. Robinson, 311 So.2d 893 (La. 1975). If defendant‘s complaint is that his trial counsel did not give him competent advice, then defendant may file an application for post-conviction relief. Sеe
Compliance with Sentencing Guidelines
Defendant‘s primary complaint is that the trial judgе imposed an apparently severe sentence without stating for the record the factual basis for the considerations taken into account in sentencing, as required by
In imposing sentence, the trial judge considered, but rejected, defendant‘s contention that he should not be punished severely because there were substantial grounds to believe that his actions were provoked and induced by the victim‘s misconduct. The trial judgе referred primarily to defendant‘s refusal to avail himself of several opportunities to avoid the killing.5 The record fully supports this very important consideration.6 Although there had been prior threats by the victim and a рrevious brandishing of the knife, at the time of the shooting the knife was in the victim‘s pocket, and there is no indication (except for defendant‘s statement to the probation officer) that the victim was in the process of attacking defendant immediately prior to the shooting.7 Furthermore, despite numerous opportunities to avoid confrontation by staying away from the barroom, defendant continued to return and to argue with the victim. Whеn asked by the probation officer why he did not simply leave the bar and stay away, he stated that Doris Blackwell did not want to leave and also admitted that he was not the type of person to back down or avoid a confrontation.
Defendant‘s prior record, although not referred to by the trial judge, also supports the sentence imposed. Defendant was previously convicted in Georgia in 1978 of involuntary manslaughter resulting from an automobile accident involving two deaths. He was placed on 12 months probation, which was subsequently revoked. He was also convicted in 1974 of first degree forgery in Georgia and sentenced to serve five years. Although he was paroled after 20 months, the parole was later revoked because of defendant‘s driving while intoxicated. Defendant‘s history of prior criminal activity, as well as his record of probation and рarole violations, clearly reflect an unwillingness to observe the reasonable rules of a civilized society.
Accordingly, while the trial judge did not completely comply with
The conviction and sentence are affirmed.
CHAISSON, J. ad hoc, concurs in result.