King v. State
| Decision Date | 04 December 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. S97G1555.,S97G1555. |
| Citation | 270 Ga. 367,509 S.E.2d 32 |
| Parties | KING v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Caprice Jenerson Small, Dwight L. Thomas, Atlanta, for Thelma King.
Keith Clifford Martin, Solicitor, Evelyn Proctor, Asst. Solicitor, Jonesboro, for the State.
Thelma Deloise King entered a plea of guilty to two misdemeanor charges at a hearing in state court that was not transcribed or recorded. She was sentenced to twelve-months imprisonment. A day later she moved to withdraw her guilty plea, which the trial court denied and the Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed.1 We granted the writ of certiorari to consider whether the court of appeals erred in ruling that King's guilty pleas were freely and voluntarily entered when the guilty plea hearing was not reported and there was no showing made on the record that the proper rules were followed. We hold that the pre-printed plea form that was completed by the prosecutor in this case and resulted in a term of imprisonment fails to constitute an adequate record of the guilty plea hearing and that withdrawal of King's guilty plea is necessary to correct a manifest injustice. Because of the problems caused by inadequate records, we also announce a new rule, to be applied prospectively, that requires state courts to produce a verbatim record of guilty plea hearings when a defendant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment.
King's guilty plea hearing in the Clayton County State Court was not recorded or reported. Instead, the record consists of three forms. The first form is the accusation charging King with driving with a suspended license and giving a false name and date of birth to a police officer on December 29, 1992. The second form, the plea statement, indicates that King was not represented by counsel when she entered her non-negotiated plea of guilty to both offenses on July 9, 1996. This pre-printed form states that the defendant has been advised of various constitutional rights, waived the right to counsel, and is entering the plea freely and voluntarily. Both the defendant and the trial judge signed the plea statement. A third form, the sentence, shows that the trial court sentenced King to six months probation and a $500 fine for the suspended license and twelve-months imprisonment for giving a false name.
King hired an attorney and filed a motion to withdraw her guilty plea. Two days later, the same judge who took the guilty plea held a hearing on the motion to withdraw. At that hearing, which was transcribed, King testified that she did not understand what she was signing at the guilty plea hearing, did not understand what the judge was saying, had problems with her hearing, and did not hear the judge say that she could be fined and sentenced to twelve months in jail on each offense. The state presented no witnesses, but relied on the signed forms. The assistant solicitor stipulated that she filled out the guilty plea form for King by checking the appropriate boxes, but did not explain the document to her or negotiate with her about a plea. The trial court took judicial notice that the separate forms concerning the waiver of counsel and the right to a jury trial were never used when a defendant enters a guilty plea but only when the plea was not guilty. The trial judge also stated that King was individually arraigned and did not ask for an attorney until she was sentenced to twelve-months imprisonment. Finally, the trial judge stated for the record her recollection of the hearing and reasons for denying the motion to withdraw. King appealed and the court of appeals affirmed. We reverse.
1. The issue in this case is the "record" required in a guilty plea hearing in state court, which is a court of record, when the accused is sentenced to a term of imprisonment. In Boykin v. Alabama,2 the United States Supreme Court held that it was error for a state trial court to accept a defendant's guilty plea without an affirmative showing on the face of the record that the plea was intelligent and voluntary. "`Presuming waiver from a silent record is impermissible.' "3 We have interpreted Boykin as requiring that the record of the guilty plea hearing must be adequate for a reviewing court to determine "whether (1) the defendant has freely and voluntarily entered the plea with (2) an understanding of the nature of the charges against him and (3) an understanding of the consequences of his plea."4 The state has the burden on direct review to show that the plea was intelligently and voluntarily entered.5 The state may meet its burden by showing on the record of the guilty plea hearing that the defendant was aware of the rights being waived and the consequences of the plea or by filling "a silent record by use of extrinsic evidence that affirmatively shows that the guilty plea was knowing and voluntary."6
The purpose of the record is to ensure that the state can meet its burden of proof on the voluntariness of the plea and to enable reviewing courts to determine that the rights of the accused have been protected.7 "These goals can best be facilitated by advising the defendant of the constitutional rights which are waived by pleading guilty and by recording the dialogue between the defendant and the trial court to illustrate that the defendant understands the significance of the rights he is waiving."8
Following these decisions interpreting the application of Boykin in Georgia courts, this Court approved rules that govern pleading by criminal defendants. Uniform Superior Court Rule 33.11, which deals with the record of proceedings, follows the ABA recommendations relating to guilty pleas.9 The rule requires that a verbatim record shall be made and preserved of any proceeding where a defendant enters a plea of guilty. The record must show that the trial judge determined on the record the voluntariness of the plea as required under Rule 33.7,10 informed the defendant of certain rights as required under Rule 33.8, and determined the accuracy of the plea as required under Rule 33.9. Uniform State Court Rule 33.11 is identical to the superior court rule, except that it does not require a "verbatim" record. However, the on-the-record requirement of Rules 33.7 through 33.10 is the same in both superior and state courts.
The primary rationale for Rule 33.11 and the on-the-record requirement of Rule 33.7 is to provide reviewing courts with a record of the plea proceedings to determine if challenged pleas have been entered voluntarily and with proper understanding.11 In recommending a verbatim record, the ABA committee that drafted the standards acknowledged that recording facilities were then unavailable in many courts. Therefore, the committee proposed other means to preserve an accurate record of the proceedings, such as requiring a defendant to sign a form setting out the rights waived or permitting the trial judge to sign a checklist indicating that the necessary procedures were followed. The committee cautioned, however, that these alternative methods were "only temporary substitutes" for a verbatim record.12
Although we have not addressed the type of record specifically required by Rule 33.7, we have addressed the related issue of the record required under Rule 33.9. In State v. Evans,13 we interpreted "on the record" to mean that the inquiry into the factual basis for the plea occur on the record of the plea hearing. "As USCR 33.9 requires the trial court to exercise its discretion to subjectively satisfy itself that there is a factual basis for the plea, it is incumbent upon the trial court to produce a record on the basis of which a reviewing court can determine whether an abuse of discretion occurred."14 In that case, we concluded that there was not an adequate record when the state's opening statement was not transcribed, the transcript of the plea hearing did not show a factual basis for the plea, and an investigator's affidavit was not introduced at the plea hearing. Similarly, we rejected a pre-printed plea petition with a checklist of standard questions as insufficient to supply the factual basis for a guilty plea.15 Subsequently, we determined that a trial court's summary statement that there was a factual basis for the plea was deficient when the record of the guilty plea hearing provided none of the facts underlying the charge.16
While those cases dealt with the record on the accuracy of the pleas, we find the same analysis applies to the record on the voluntariness of pleas. In both instances, the trial court must "exercise its discretion to subjectively satisfy itself" that the requirements of the rule have been met and produce a record sufficient for a reviewing court to evaluate the exercise of that discretion. In this case, there is no transcript of the guilty plea hearing because neither a court reporter nor a tape recorder was used at the hearing. Without a verbatim record, the state relies solely on documentary evidence. The only form dealing with the voluntariness of the guilty plea is the plea statement that was completed by the prosecutor. Its only reference to the issue is a single printed statement that the defendant entered the plea freely and voluntarily. We hold that this summary statement on a guilty plea form, without more, constitutes an inadequate record of the proceedings and prevents this court from determining whether the trial court abused its discretion in ruling that King voluntarily entered her plea knowing the nature of the charges and the consequences of her plea.
2. Even when a defendant proves the record is inadequate, she may withdraw a guilty plea after sentence is imposed only if she proves withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice.17 In conducting the manifest injustice analysis, the reviewing court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mims v. State, S16A0542
...attorney regarding any interaction she may have had with her client regarding the plea form or its contents”); King v. State, 270 Ga. 367, 367–368, 509 S.E.2d 32 (1998) (although defendant and plea judge signed written plea form, prosecuting attorney stipulated that she filled out the form ......
-
Nash v. State
...Court Rules 33.7, 33.8, 33.9, 33.11, as well as our appellate courts' strict enforcement of those practices. See, e.g., King v. State, 270 Ga. 367, 509 S.E.2d 32 (1998); Knight v. Sikes, 269 Ga. 814, 504 S.E.2d 686 (1998). Given the presumption of regularity together with the conscientious ......
-
Smith v. The State
...compliance with USCR 33, along with the constitutional requirements that underlie portions of that rule. See King v. State, 270 Ga. 367, 369, 509 S.E.2d 32 (1998). Likewise, if such a challenge is based on violation of OCGA § 17-7-93(c), the State must show that the trial court complied, in......
-
Moody v. State
... ... of the plea that defense counsel rather than Moody could ... decide what strategy to pursue at trial. The State has the ... burden on direct appeal of establishing that the plea was ... entered knowingly and voluntarily. See King v ... State , 270 Ga. 367, 369 (1) (509 S.E.2d 32) (1998). The ... State may meet this burden "by showing on the record of ... the guilty plea hearing that the defendant was cognizant of ... all the rights he was waiving and the possible consequences ... of his plea, ... ...
-
Criminal Law - Franklin J. Hogue and Laura D. Hogue
...v. State, 270 Ga. 354, 354, 509 S.E.2d 605, 608 (1998). 134. Id., 509 S.E.2d at 607. 135. Id. at 356-57, 509 S.E.2d at 609-10. 136. 270 Ga. 367, 509 S.E.2d 32 (1998). 137. Id. at 369-70, 509 S.E.2d at 35. 138. Id. at 372, 509 S.E.2d at 36-37. 139. 234 Ga. App. 603, 507 S.E.2d 490 (1998). 14......