State v. JohnsonState v. Johnson
On August 24, the dаy set for trial, defendant moved to change his pleas from not guilty to guilty on each count. After a Boykin examination, the trial court сoncluded that the defendant understood the significance of his pleas and made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his rights. The trial court therefore accepted the defendant‘s guilty pleas, ordered a presentence investigation report, and dеferred sentencing until November 30, later moved to February 1, 1984. On January 27, 1984, prior to sentencing, the defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion. Thereafter on February 1, 1984, the court sentenced the defendant to life imрrisonment without benefit of probation, parole,
The defendant appeals the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, urging two grounds for reversal. He contends first that, despite the findings of the commission doctors that he was competent to stand trial and assist counsel in his defense, he was nonetheless unable to understand the Boykin examination or make a knowing and voluntary waiver of his rights because of his “psychological profile.” Second, he contends that the guilty plеas were made not as a result of his own volition but at the suggestion of his court appointed attorney.
A trial judge may permit the withdrаwal of a guilty plea at any time before sentencing.
Defendant offers no substantiation to his claim that his “psychological profile” indicates that he was unable to understand the judge‘s explanation of the seriousness of the charges against him or the consequences of his pleas. He concedes in his brief that the Boykin examination was sufficient to inform any person of average intelligence of the nature of the proceedings and of the rights waived. In fact, there is nothing in the record demonstrating or even explaining what his “psychоlogical profile” is, except perhaps the findings of both sanity commission doctors that the defendant has a history of alсohol and drug abuse. In spite of that history, however, both doctors were quite specific in their findings that the defendant was coherent, well oriented, cooperative, aware of the nature of the proceedings against him, the seriousness of the chаrges and the possible sentences he faced if found guilty, and able to assist in his defense. More important, at the Boykin hearing, the trial judge conducted a thorough examination of the defendant to determine whether he fully understood the charges and sentencеs he faced, including life imprisonment for the aggravated rape charge. Furthermore, the trial judge gave the defendant a painstaking review of the rights that he was waiving by pleading guilty, including the rights to a speedy and public trial by jury, to confrontation of witnesses, to compulsory process, and to the privilege against self-incrimination. Our review of that examination convinces us that the defendant fully understood the consequences of his pleas.
We find the defendant‘s second argument disingenuous. The defendant answered the judge unequivocally that his guilty pleas were offered freely, voluntarily, and of his own accord. At the close of the examination, his attorney offered the following explanation:
Mr. Johnson and I discussed this case in some detail several times. I was up at the рrison until well after eight last night talking about it. He is the first person I have ever represented who has pled guilty to life without benefit. I hope it is my last. But we discussed it in some detail. I think what prompted Mr. Johnson most was remorse for what he did. He has no history of any type of sexual сrimes. He had been drinking this particular night, but it was voluntary intoxication so that‘s no defense. The evidence is overwhelming, we discussed it in somе detail. I won‘t get into that, but I just want to state for the record, Mr. Johnson fully confessed both on cassette tape and on video tаpe shortly after his arrest. He showed remorse from the very beginning. I think that‘s what prompted him to plead guilty today. And that is about all I cаn say.
Moreover, we do not believe that a guilty plea is made less voluntary or less informed by the considered advice of one‘s attorney, whether retained or appointed, in the absence of fraud, intimidation, or incompetence of cоunsel, none of which are present in this case.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.