State v. MaloneyState v. Maloney
Carl Maloney was indicted for aggravated rape, a violation of
At the guilty plea, the assistant district attorney summarized the facts of the offense. On October 13, 1991, the victim‘s mother woke up and noticed that her five year old daughter was not in bed with her. When she could not find her daughter, she went to the kitchen and noticed the light was on in the laundry room. When she tried unsucсessfully to open the door, her fiancé, the defendant, who was in the laundry area, told her the child was in her room. The mother checked the child‘s room again but did not find her. She then forced her way into the laundry area. She found her daughter standing next to defendant. Defendant‘s penis was protruding out of the front of his boxer shorts. The young girl told her mother that defendant had put his penis in her vagina. The doctor who examined the victim found tears in the vaginal opening. Additionally, blood was found in the victim‘s vaginal vault and on her panties.
SUFFICIENCY OF GUILTY PLEA EXAMINATION
In the first assignment of error, defendant argues his guilty plea should be vacated because the court did not adequately advise him of the nature of the charge and did not advise him of the sentencing range when he
It is well settled that a guilty plea waives all defects prior to the pleа except those jurisdictional defects which appear on the face of the pleadings and proceedings. Defendant did not file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Nevertheless, we elect to review the merits of defendant‘s claims. See State v. Farmer, 612 So.2d 801, 802 (La.App. 1st Cir.1992).
Defendant faults the trial court for not advising him of the elements of the offense. Before aсcepting a guilty plea, the trial court must be satisfied the defendant is entering the plea knowingly and voluntarily with full understanding of the true nature of the charge against him. However, it is nоt essential to the validity of a guilty plea that the court specifically inform the defendant of every element of the charged offense. To have a guilty plea set aside on this ground, the defendant must establish that his lack of knowledge regarding the essential elements of the offense resulted in his unawareness of the true nature of the offense to which he pled guilty. See Farmer, 612 So.2d at 802-03; State v. Jones, 610 So.2d 1014, 1015 (La.App. 1st Cir.1992).
At the guilty plea proceedings, defendant indicated it was in his best interest to plead guilty to the responsive offense of forcible rape. He was forty-one years old and had attended two years of college. He acknowledged and demonstrated his ability to read and write and to understand the proсeedings. By pleading guilty to forcible rape, he reduced his exposure from life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension (the penalty for aggravated rape) to forty years at hard labor without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence (the maximum penalty fоr forcible rape). Although the court did not specifically advise defendant of the elements of the offense of forcible rape, the prosecutor summarized the facts of defendant‘s crime; and defendant stipulated that the prosecutor‘s statement established the factual basis for the plea. These facts were suffiсient to establish defendant‘s guilt not only for forcible rape, but also for aggravated rape. On appeal defendant makes no claim that he was unaware of the essential nature of the offense; and we find nothing in the record to support this position.
Defendant also claims the trial court did not adequately advise him of his sentеncing exposure. It is important to a defendant‘s decision to plead guilty that he understand the maximum penalty exposure. State ex rel. LaFleur v. Donnelly, 416 So.2d 82, 84 (La.1982). Recently, this Court found no merit in a defendant‘s claim that his guilty plea should be vacated because the trial court had not advised him of the sentencing range. We noted that the defendant had not contended that his guilty plea was rendered involuntary because he received a sentence in excess of one promised him or that he actually was unaware of his sentencing exposure. See State v. Harris, 601 So.2d 775, 777-78 (La.App. 1st Cir.1992).
Similarly, in the instant case, defendant makes no claim that he was not aware of the maximum sentence for forcible rape. Instead, he argues that the cоlloquy between the court and defense counsel was insufficient to fulfill the court‘s obligation to personally advise defendant of the sentencing range. Rather than directly advising defendant of the sentencing range, the court and defense counsel discussed the sentencing range in defendant‘s presence as follows:
The Court: The range of penalty is zero to forty?
[Defense counsel]: Five to forty, your Honor.
The Court: Five to forty.
[Defense counsel]: Two of which—at least two of which must be without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.
Additionally, a similar statement concerning the possiblе penalty was included in the guilty plea form signed by defendant and his attorney. Although neither the comments made by the court and counsel during the guilty plea nor the guilty plea form аdvised
Considering these circumstances, we conclude defendant has failed to establish that he was unaware of the essential nature оf the charge or of the sentencing range. To the contrary, the record indicates defendant was aware of the essential nature of the specific chаrge to which he pled guilty and of the sentencing range. The assignment of error is without merit.
EXCESSIVE SENTENCE
In the second assignment of error, defendant argues the court imposed an excessive sentence and did not comply with the requirements of
As required by
Therefore, the conviction is affirmed; and this matter is remanded to the trial cоurt for supplementation of the record with the ruling on defendant‘s motion to reconsider sentence. If there has been no disposition of the motion, the court should rulе on it within thirty days of the date of this opinion. If the motion to reconsider is granted and defendant is resentenced, he may appeal the new sentence. If the motion is dеnied or if it already has been ruled on, defendant must move to relodge this appeal within sixty days of the date of the ruling on the motion to reconsider sentence or thе date of this opinion, whichever is later.
In reviewing the record for patent error, we have found error in the sentence which should be corrected upon remаnd. Although the minutes of the sentencing indicate defendant received credit for time served, the transcript of the sentencing reveals that the trial court did not credit defеndant with time served as required by
CONVICTION AFFIRMED. REMANDED WITH ORDER.