STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. B. Douglas COFFIN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13912.
Supreme Court of Idaho.
April 1, 1983.
661 P.2d 328
In conclusion, I turn to three other passages from the text of Miranda, which to my mind are clearly dispositive of the issue presented.
Once warnings have been given, the subsequent procedure is clear. If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease. At this point he has shown that he intends to exercise his Fifth Amendment privilege; any statement taken after the person invokes his privilege cannot be other than the product of compulsion, subtle or otherwise. Without the right to cut off questioning, the setting of in-custody interrogation operates on the individual to overcome free choice in producing a statement after the privilege has been once invoked. If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. At that time, the individual must have an opportunity to confer with the attorney and to have him present during any subsequent questioning. If the individual cannot obtain an attorney and he indicates that he wants one before speaking to police, they must respect his decision to remain silent.
....
If the interrogation continues without the presence of an attorney and a statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on the government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self-incrimination and his right to retained or appointed counsel. Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 490, n. 14 [84 S.Ct. 1758, 1765, n. 14, 12 L.Ed.2d 977]. This Court has always set high standards of proof for the waiver of constitutional rights, Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 [58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461] (1938), and we re-assert these standards as applied to in-custody interrogation. Since the Statе is responsible for establishing the isolated circumstances under which the interrogation takes place and has the only means of making available corroborated evidence of warnings given during incommunicado interrogation, the burden is rightly on its shoulders.
....
The warnings required and the waiver necessary in accordance with our opinion today are, in the absence of a fully effective equivalent, prerequisites to the admissibility of any statement made by a defendant. No distinction can be drawn between statements which are direct confessions and statements which amount to ‘admissions’ of part or all of an offense. The privilege against self-incrimination protects the individual from being compelled to incriminate himself in any manner; it does not distinguish degrees of incrimination. Similarly, for precisely the same reason, no distinction may be drawn between inсulpatory statements and statements alleged to be merely ‘exculpatory.’ If a statement made were in fact truly exculpatory it would, of course, never be used by the prosecution.
384 U.S. at 473-77, 86 S.Ct. 1627-29 (emphasis added).
David H. Leroy, Atty. Gen., and Lynn E. Thomas, Sol. Gen., Boise, for plaintiff-respondent.
BAKES, Justice.
Defendant appeals from the convictions entered upon pleas of guilty of two counts of first degree burglary and of resisting an officer, and from the sentences imposed on each count. Affirmed.
Defendant was charged, by way of information, with two counts of first degree burglary in violation of
At the sentencing hearing which began on September 8, 1980, and was continuеd until September 9, 1980, the district court entered judgments of guilty on all three charges. After reviewing the defendant‘s prior criminal record, the court sentenced the defendant to a ten-year indeterminate term of imprisonment on each burglary conviction, the terms to run concurrently, and to an indeterminate five year term on the count of resisting an officer, the latter term to run consecutively to the sentences imposed оn the burglary convictions. Defendant appeals from the judgments of conviction and sentences imposed on all three counts. We affirm.
The principal issue raised by defendant on appeal is whether the trial court erred in accepting defendant‘s pleas of guilty to the first degree burglary charges. The record, including the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, affirmatively shows that defendant‘s pleas of guilty wеre voluntarily entered, that he understood and waived his constitutional rights and that he was informed of the possible consequences of his pleas. See State v. Coutts, 101 Idaho 110, 609 P.2d 642 (1980); State v. Cleverly, 101 Idaho 596, 618 P.2d 774 (1980); State v. Flummer, 99 Idaho 567, 585 P.2d 1278 (1978); see also North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970); Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). Defendant does not challenge the voluntariness of his pleas.
Instead, he alleges that the trial court erred in accepting his pleas of guilty to the first degree burglary charges without first establishing a sufficient factual basis for the crimes charged. The defendant accurately notes in his brief on appeal that there is currently no requirement in Idaho that the trial court must establish a factual basis prior to accepting a guilty plea.2 See, e.g.,
The record shows that the informations charging the defendant with first degree burglary were read to the defendant at his arraignment. The informations contained the elements of first degree burglary, including the allegations that the burglaries occurred during the nighttime. Before accepting the pleas of guilty, the district court interrogated the defendant regarding his waiver of rights, his understanding of the English language, his education, the voluntariness of his рleas and the plea bargaining arrangement, and informed him of the maximum penalties that could be imposed on each count. The court accepted defendant‘s pleas of guilty only when convinced that they were freely and voluntarily given.
Defendant did not argue or otherwise inform the court at the arraignment hearing that he claimed to have entered the cabins in the daytime. Nor does the record disclosе that the court was aware of the alleged factual discrepancy at that stage of the proceedings. The court did, however, expressly ask the defendant whether there was any reason other than the plea bargain why defendant was pleading guilty to these serious offenses. The following dialogue ensued:
MR. COFFIN: Yes, sir. I understand your question. Pleading guilty because I am guilty, I guess, sir.
THE COURT: And I suppose you feel that even if you pled not guilty, thе chances of the State proving its case is pretty good. Is that a fair statement?
MR. COFFIN: Yes, sir.
Thus, not only did the defendant‘s pleas of guilty to the first degree burglary charges constitute a tacit admission of the facts alleged in the informations but, prior to the court‘s acceptance of the guilty pleas, the defendant expressly admitted that he was guilty of the charges. Therefore, given the defendant‘s voluntary entry of pleas of guilty and express admission of guilt to the first degree burglary charges, we hold that the court was not obliged to establish a further factual basis for the charges and that the court did not err at this stage of the proceedings in accepting defendant‘s pleas of guilty to the first degree burglary charges. See Sparrow v. State, 102 Idaho 60, 625 P.2d 414 (1981); State v. Cleverly, 101 Idaho 596, 618 P.2d 774 (1980); State v. Taylor, 100 Idaho 105, 593 P.2d 1390 (1979); State v. West, 100 Idaho 16, 592 P.2d 72 (1979); State v. Bradley, 98 Idaho 918, 575 P.2d 1306 (1978).
The defendant‘s allegations that he entered the cabins during the daytime and,
The court reconvened at approximately 3:00 p.m., on September 9, 1980. At that time the court asked the defendant whether he wanted to continue with or withdraw his guilty pleas. The defendant stated that he had thought about his pleas, had had time to discuss them with his attorney, and that he wished to continue with his pleas of guilty.3 Only after the defendant reaffirmed his desire to plead guilty to the charges of first degree burglary did the trial court enter its judgments of conviction and impose sentences thereon.
In North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), the United States Supreme Court upheld the entry and acceptancе of the defendant‘s plea of guilty to second degree murder, regardless of defendant‘s statements that he was innocent. The Supreme Court stated:
[W]hile most pleas of guilty consist of both a waiver of trial and an express admission of guilt, the latter element is not a constitutional requisite to the imposition of criminal penalty. An individual accused of crime may voluntarily, knowingly, and understandingly consent to the imposition of a prison sеntence even if he is unwilling or unable to admit his participation in the acts constituting the crime.
(Emphasis added.) 91 S.Ct. at 167.
The court determined that a guilty plea may be accepted when accompanied by protestations of innocence. 91 S.Ct. at 168.
This Court recently applied the rule announced in Alford in the case of Sparrow v. State, 102 Idaho 60, 625 P.2d 414 (1981). In Sparrow, the defendant alleged that he had not been adequately informed of the element of intent and that acceptance of his plea was therefore in error, particularly in light of the fact that he denied intent to commit the crime. This Court found that “the defendant‘s denial of criminal intent does not affect the validity of his guilty plea,” supra at 61, 625 P.2d at 415, and held
The defendant in this action, like the defendant in Alford, voluntarily and intelligеntly entered his pleas of guilty pursuant to the terms of the plea bargaining agreement. At the sentencing hearing the court noted its concern that defendant pleaded guilty to first degree burglary while maintaining his innocence, i.e., that he had entered the cabins in the daytime. The defendant was given ample opportunity to withdraw his plea, but nevertheless made a reasoned decision to continue with his pleas of guilty as charged, consistently with the terms of his plea bargain. This is clearly a case in which the defendant intelligently concluded that it was in his own best interest to enter a plea of guilty to the crimes charged. See State v. Roderick, 97 Idaho 82, 84, 540 P.2d 267, 269 (1975). He chose to take his chances that the trial court would exercise leniency in sentencing, as opposed to facing the additional charges which were dismissed upon the court‘s acceptance of his pleas. Hаving struck a plea bargain with the prosecutor and insisted upon following that bargain when given the opportunity to withdraw his plea, defendant cannot now be heard to complain that the district court‘s acceptance of his pleas of guilty to the first degree burglary charges was in error. See State v. Flummer, 99 Idaho 567, 569, 585 P.2d 1278, 1280 (1978).
Defendant‘s remaining assignments of error relate to sentencing. First, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in imposing a sentеnce in excess of the maximum term allowed for a conviction of second degree burglary, five years, because the facts established that he was guilty only of second degree burglary. As discussed above, however, the district court did not err in accepting defendant‘s pleas of guilty to the first degree burglary charges. A valid plea of guilty is in itself a conviction. See State v. Tipton, 99 Idaho 670, 673, 587 P.2d 305, 308 (1978); see also Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S. 220, 223, 47 S.Ct. 582, 583, 71 L.Ed. 1009 (1927). Therefore, the trial court did not err in sentencing the defendаnt on his conviction of first degree burglary, and within the confines of
The defendant also alleges that the inclusion of previously dismissed charges in the presentence investigation report denied him of due process of law. This argument is without merit. The trial court expressly stated that in reaching its sentencing decision it would not consider charges which wеre pending, not located, or had been dismissed. Furthermore, consideration of charges which are pending or have been previously dismissed in arriving at a sentencing decision is within the sen
Next, the defendant alleges that the trial court erred in two respects in sentencing him to a five year consecutive sentence on the conviction of resisting an officer. First, defendant claims that there was confusion regarding the crime of which he was convicted. At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, the court pronounced its judgment upon the two charges of first degree burglary and then upon the third crime of “assault upon a police officer.” The defendant alleges that this statement may have indicated that the court intended to convict him only of assault upon a police officer, a misdemeanor, and that the court thereforе should not have sentenced him to a term greater than that allowed for assault upon a police officer. The record, however, establishes that the complaint and information charged the defendant with resisting an officer by means of violence, a felony. In his brief on appeal, defendant admits that “the defendant knowingly entered a plea of guilty to the charge of felony Resisting an Officer.” Immediately aftеr pronouncing its judgment, the court imposed an indeterminate five year consecutive sentence upon “the final charge of resisting an officer.” Although the court at one point did say “assault upon a police officer,” the record clearly demonstrates that all parties understood and proceeded on the charges of felony resisting arrest, and that the court intended to and did enter a convictiоn upon that charge. Hence, the trial court did not err in sentencing the defendant for resisting an officer, the crime of which he was charged and convicted.
Finally, the defendant claims that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing a five year sentence upon the conviction of felony resisting arrest that would run consecutively to the sentences imposed on the burglary convictions. Under
DONALDSON, C.J., SHEPARD and HUNTLEY, JJ., concur.
BISTLINE, Justice, concurring.
There is little to be gained by not concurring, but I remain unimpressed by application of the cliche that on sentence review any sentence within statutory limits is prima facie acceptable — which results in the defendant presenting his appeal with two strikes against him. Apparently this defendant has done no time in the pеnitentiary until now. Assuming that he and society would benefit from some time, it might be that a total term of seven and one-half years would serve these interests as well as
Notes
[THE COURT:] Mr. Coffin, I think we had some comments yesterday prior to a recess, at which time I again reminded you of the seriousness of the offense. I purposely continued the matter over night to givе you an opportunity to think about this and to confer with your counsel to give more legal advice. Have you had an opportunity to do this?
MR. WALZ: Yes, sir.
MR. COFFIN: Yes, sir, I have thought about it.
THE COURT: And have you conferred with your attorney on this?
MR. COFFIN: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Have you had sufficient time to talk with your lawyer since yesterday?
MR. COFFIN: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And then I‘ll ask you then is it still your intention to continue with your pleas of guilty to the charges before this Court, or do you wish to withdraw your pleas of guilty?
MR. COFFIN: I wish to continue.
THE COURT: Now, I know we did have some conversation abоut the degrees of crimes and whether you were pleading guilty to one crime and said, no, I didn‘t commit the crime, or a different crime. Have you had time to reflect on this now?
MR. COFFIN: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And it is your intention to continue with your plea? I‘m not trying to talk you out of it.
MR. COFFIN: Well, I understand you‘re giving me all opportunity for my own good, but I made the pleas as part of a plea bargaining, and I wish to continue.”