STATE of Louisiana v. Robert CALHOUN.
No. 96-K-0786.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
May 20, 1997.
694 So.2d 909
CALOGERO, Chief Justice.
Richard P. Ieyoub, Atty. Gen., Douglas P. Moreau, Dist. Atty., Monisa L. Thompson, Baton Rouge, for Respondent.
CALOGERO, Chief Justice.
We granted certiorari in this case to determine whether the lower courts erred in ruling that the defendant could not withdraw a “best interest” guilty plea to one count of Molestation of a Juvenile. Given the totality of the circumstances under which the plea was made, we conclude that the district court judge abused her discretion in denying defendant‘s
FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On February 3, 1994, a grand jury returned a two-count bill of indictment against the defendant, Robert Calhoun, charging him with one count each of Sexual Battery, a violation of
On August 29, 1994, prior to his sentencing, Calhoun filed, pro se, a “Motion to Withdraw Guilty Pleas” and a “Motion to Terminate Counsel.” Both motions were premised on allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. The motions were considered at a hearing held on September 20, 1994 at which Calhoun represented himself. At the hearing, the Motion to Withdraw Guilty Pleas was enlarged to include the district court judge‘s failure to inform Calhoun of the sex offender registration requirements, codified at
The judge next considered the Motion to Withdraw Guilty Pleas. Calhoun, representing himself on the motion, argued that his pleas were not informed ones for two reasons. First, Calhoun contended that he entered into the “best interest” guilty pleas because his then-attorney, Steven Young, advised him that there were no possible defenses to the charges and that the sentences would be less harsh if the defendant pled guilty. However, Calhoun later discovered that Young had confessed to the court—on the day before the pleas were entered—that he was unprepared to go to trial, had not interviewed any potential witnesses, and, in his own words, “just blew it!” Calhoun argued that his pleas were thus constitutionally infirm because they were based upon the advice of unprepared, uninformed counsel. In so arguing, Calhoun posed these rhetorical questions to the court: “How can an attorney advise a client that there is no hope for him at trial when the attorney has not even prepared for trial? How can an attorney explain to his client that the client has no defense against the allegations of the State when the attorney has not attempted to see if... a defense exists?”
After considering defendant‘s arguments, the district court judge denied the Motion to Withdraw Guilty Pleas, finding that Calhoun‘s pleas were based upon a free, knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of his Boykin rights,4 even though the judge acknowledged that Calhoun had not been informed of the sex offender registration requirements prior to entering the pleas. Thereafter, on October 14, 1994, Calhoun was sentenced to six-years imprisonment at hard labor on the molestation charge.5 At the sentencing hearing, the judge informed Calhoun of the sex offender registration requirements both verbally and in writing.
Calhoun appealed, assigning as errors, inter alia, the trial court‘s denial of the Motion to Withdraw Guilty Pleas and ineffective assistance of counsel. The First Circuit affirmed. As to the denial of the Motion to Withdraw Guilty Pleas, the court reasoned that “there undoubtedly is no mandate that the court inform the defendant of the [sex offender] registration and notification requirements[,]... as they are not part of the defendant‘s sentence.” State v. Calhoun, 94-2567, pp. 6-7 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2/23/96), 669 So.2d 1351, 1356. As to Calhoun‘s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the court concluded that because an evidentiary proceeding would be necessary to resolve defendant‘s allegations, this claim would more properly be addressed by an application for post-conviction relief. Id. at 1357.
From the court of appeal‘s decision, Calhoun sought review by this Court. We granted certiorari only as to the Molestation of a Juvenile charge and directed the parties to limit argument to the motion to vacate the guilty plea.
LAW
Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 559 gives the district court judge the discretion to permit a withdrawal of a guilty plea at any time prior to sentencing.
In the instant case, the district court judge concluded that Calhoun filed the Motion to Withdraw Guilty Pleas “purely on the basis that he [didn‘t] want to register as a sex offender.” (R. at p. 349). The judge then denied the motion, stating that “when the Boykin clearly indicates he understood his rights, he was allowed to speak several times, ask any questions that he so desired, confer with his attorney, this ... court believes and still believes it is a free, knowing and intelligent and voluntary waiver of those rights.” (R. at pp. 349-50). We find that the district court judge placed undue emphasis on Calhoun‘s waiver of his Boykin rights, as other factors also have a bearing on the validity of a plea. E.g., State ex rel. LaFleur v. Donnelly, 416 So.2d 82 (La.1982). Further, we find, for the reasons detailed below, that, given the “totality of the circumstances” under which the pleas were made, the district court judge abused her discretion in denying the motion.
At the hearing on the motion, the judge explained that she did not advise Calhoun, either in writing or in the guilty plea colloquy, of the provisions of the sex offender registration laws at the guilty plea stage because she did not “believe” in the use of guilty plea forms. She had planned to notify Calhoun of the sex offender registration requirements at the sentencing stage. This decision to delay notification is contrary to the statutory requirements.
The court shall provide written notification to any defendant charged with a sex offense of the registration requirements of R.S. 15:542. Such notice shall be included on any guilty plea forms and judgment and sentence forms provided to the defendant.
We also note that
In the instant case, despite the directive in
The court of appeal, in addressing the district court‘s failure to comply with the statutory sex offender notification requirements, made much ado about Calhoun‘s failure expressly to state in his written motion or at the hearing that had he been informed of the registration requirements, he would not have pled guilty. The court of appeal, however, overlooks the fact that the motion to withdraw the guilty pleas was filed pro se in conjunction with another pro se motion to terminate counsel. Both of these motions were considered at a single hearing where Calhoun appeared without counsel. In this hearing, Calhoun explained that his guilty plea was not an informed one, as both his counsel at the time that the plea was entered and the court failed to inform him of the registration requirements. Calhoun testified, in part, as follows:
No one had explained to me that I was subject to the sex offender registration laws when I entered my pleas of guilty, no one, not even this court. According to the Louisiana Criminal Code 15.543, I was supposed to be provided with information at the time of my guilty plea.... I received no such notification of the sex offender registration law. It is my understanding that I have a constitutional right to an informed plea.... As I pointed out before, my attorney openly admitted to this court that he was not prepared to go to trial and had not done the necessary things to build a defense. Because of his lack of preparation, I firmly believe that my attorney was not in a cap—capacity to plea bargain in my behalf nor was he prepared to advise me as to what I should do, especially in the sex offender law he did not tell me about. I also submit that I received no written or oral notification of being subject to the sex offender registration laws which
is mandated by the—by the laws of the State of Louisiana. I tell the court that my plea was not an informed plea by choice, and I ask the court to allow me to withdraw my pleas.
(R. at 342-43) (emphasis added).
Calhoun, at the least, implicitly stated that he would not have pled guilty had he been informed of the registration requirements. Perhaps it would have been wiser for him to expressly state that, but, as noted above, Calhoun was without counsel at this hearing. Moreover, we note that this Court has never required that such a statement be made before a guilty plea might be withdrawn on grounds that it was not knowingly and voluntarily entered.
We conclude, therefore, that the district court judge‘s failure to advise Calhoun of the registration requirements before accepting his guilty plea is a factor that undercuts the voluntariness of that plea.6
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
When we granted the writ in the instant case, we limited argument to the consideration of the voluntariness of the guilty plea. However, Calhoun argued, in part, that the voluntariness of his plea, in addition to the above, was also undercut by his counsel‘s ineffective assistance. “When a defendant enters a counseled plea of guilty, this court will review the quality of counsel‘s representation in deciding whether the plea should be set aside.” State v. Beatty, 391 So.2d 828, 831 (La.1980).
Generally, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are relegated to post-conviction proceedings. E.g., State v. Burkhalter, 428 So.2d 449, 456 (1983). However, where the claim is raised as an assignment of error on direct review and where the record on appeal is adequate to resolve the matter, the claims should be addressed in the interest of judicial economy. State v. Ratcliff, 416 So.2d 528, 530 (La.1982). In the instant case, defendant‘s claim as to ineffective assistance of counsel is limited to a discrete event—counsel‘s advising defendant that it would be in his “best interest” to plead guilty. As to this discrete event, the record contains sufficient information for this Court to address the claim.
In particular, the record reveals that on August 2, 1994, the day before Calhoun pled guilty, his then-counsel, Steven Young, filed a motion to be relieved as counsel or, alternatively, for a continuance of the trial, which had been set for August 8, 1994. In support of the motion, Young made specific references to his lack of preparedness, including his failure to compile necessary evidence, his failure to determine what evidence the State planned to use against the defendant, and his failure to interview material witnesses. Young also explained that he was not “enthused” about representing Calhoun because Young had received less than three-fifths (3/5) of his negotiated $5,000.00 fee. In addition, Young informed the court that his desire to withdraw from representation was “far greater” than his desire for a continuance and espoused his belief that withdrawal from representation was in Calhoun‘s “best interest.” In closing, on the motion for continuance, Young stated, “The State is not being blamed for counsel for defendant‘s unpreparedness. He just blew it!” (R. at p. 178).
Yet, notwithstanding this candid disclosure to the court of his lack of preparation in the case on August 2, 1994, on the very next day, Young counseled Calhoun to enter “best interest” guilty pleas to the charges of Molestation of a Juvenile and Pornography Involving Juveniles. Calhoun, at the hearing on his motion to withdraw the pleas, testified that he entered the pleas, even though he believed himself to be innocent of the charges,
In Beatty, we characterized the counsel‘s role at the guilty plea stage as being “absolutely critical in assuring that the defendant is able to weigh his options intelligently.” 391 So.2d at 831. In the instant case, we fail to see how the defendant, in deciding whether to plead guilty, could “weigh his options intelligently” under circumstances in which his own attorney—just one day earlier—essentially conceded to the court that he was ill-prepared to even assess the quality of the State‘s case or his client‘s defense(s). Young had, in effect, abandoned the case by failing to prepare for trial or, for that matter, to conduct the most basic investigation. In light of Young‘s actions, we cannot conclude that his representation of Calhoun at this critical stage was within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases.
“Best Interest” Pleas
Next, we examine the nature of Calhoun‘s guilty pleas, the so-called “best interest” plea. In the instant case, the record bears out that Calhoun was unwilling to admit his guilt to the offenses charged. At the Boykin hearing, his then attorney informed the court that “Calhoun ha[d] expressed concerns to [him] about each and every fact presented by the district attorney.” (R. at 295). The district court judge then questioned Calhoun, as follows: “Even though you don‘t agree with all the facts, you believe that it‘s in your best interest to go ahead and enter this guilty plea even though you don‘t agree with all the facts. Is that correct?” Calhoun replied, “That is correct.” (R. at 296). At that point, the judge accepted the “best interest” pleas.
The “best interest” or Alford plea, which derives from the U.S. Supreme Court case, North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), is one in which the defendant pleads guilty while maintaining his innocence. In that case, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a defendant may plead guilty, without foregoing his protestations of innocence, if “the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to defendant[,] ... especially where the defendant was represented by competent counsel whose advice was that the plea would be to the defendant‘s advantage.” Id. at 31, 91 S.Ct. at 164.
For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that Calhoun‘s “best interest” pleas did not represent “an intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to defendant.” Although Calhoun was aware that he could plead “not guilty” to the charges, he was not properly advised of the likely outcome of a trial by an attorney who was well-versed in his case. Based upon the content of Young‘s motion to terminate counsel, it is reasonable to conclude that Calhoun‘s attorney had not thoroughly investigated the possible defenses that Calhoun may have had to the charges at the time that he advised Calhoun to plead guilty. Therefore, Calhoun‘s decision to forego a trial based upon his attorney‘s assessment that there was “no hope” for Calhoun at trial cannot be characterized as “an intelligent choice.”
CONCLUSION
In summary, we find that a number of factors combined to undercut the voluntariness of Calhoun‘s plea: (1) the failure of the trial court to notify defendant of the sex offender registration requirements at the guilty plea stage, (2) the lack of preparedness of defendant‘s then-counsel when he advised Calhoun that it was in his “best interest” to plead guilty, and (3) the fact that the defendant steadfastly maintained his innocence, which supports defendant‘s contention that he pled guilty only because his attorney told him that there were no possible defenses to the charges.
In light of the totality of the circumstances under which Calhoun pled guilty to the Molestation of a Juvenile charge, we find that the district court judge abused her discretion in denying Calhoun‘s motion to withdraw the plea. For the reasons given hereinabove, we reverse the court of appeal. Calhoun‘s motion to withdraw the guilty plea as to the Molestation of a Juvenile charge is granted.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
KIMBALL, J., not on panel. Rule IV, Part 2, § 3.
KNOLL, J., dissents and assigns reasons. I further dissent for the reasons assigned by Justice Traylor.
TRAYLOR, J., dissents and assigns reasons. I further dissent for the reasons assigned by Justice Knoll.
STATE of Louisiana v. Robert CALHOUN.
No. 96-K-0786.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
May 20, 1997.
694 So.2d 909
TRAYLOR, Justice, dissenting.
We granted certiorari in this case to determine whether Robert Calhoun, the defendant, was entitled to withdraw his plea of guilty to
The defendant cannot appeal or seek review of a sentence imposed in conformity with a plea agreement which was set forth in the record at the time of the plea.
As evidenced by this article, the legislature and This Court clearly defer to the finality of a plea voluntarily given by a defendant. Both the state and Calhoun benefitted from this agreement. The remedy of withdrawal of a guilty plea before sentencing is authorized by
STATE of Louisiana v. Robert CALHOUN.
No. 96-K-0786.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
May 20, 1997.
694 So.2d 909
KNOLL, Justice, dissenting.
For the majority to find reversible error in not advising the defendant of the sex offender registration laws before the defendant entered his guilty plea, the majority elevates this notice requirement to the level of a violation of defendant‘s constitutional rights under Boykin. This is clear error based upon an erroneous interpretation of the legislative intent by the majority. It is clear that the legislature intended notice to the defendant in
The failure to inform a defendant of the registration requirements on a “guilty plea form” is not error. The use of “guilty plea forms” is not mandatory in Louisiana, and the judge in the instant case, like many of our district judges, chose not use them. In effect, the majority opinion impliedly requires all courts to use guilty plea forms when accepting a plea from sex offenders.
Reversible error is a harsh remedy and has heretofore been reserved for serious and irreversible constitutional violations that abridge the free, knowing, and intelligent waiver of a defendant‘s rights. The alleged violation of
Throughout these proceedings, the defendant has never stated that he would have changed his plea had he been informed of the registration requirement. Defendant did not show that he has been prejudiced by the court‘s failure to inform him of this requirement before he entered his plea. Furthermore, the defendant‘s general allegations of his counsel‘s incompetence are suspect considering the excellent plea bargain his counsel negotiated.
In sum, the majority makes two erroneous conclusions: first, that it is error to give defendant the notice requirements after he enters his guilty plea; and secondly, an untimely offender notification is a factor to consider in setting a defendant‘s plea aside. In my view the majority‘s conclusions pervert the statute‘s intended purpose.