Chapman v. State, 7 Div. 921
Decision Date | 20 April 1982 |
Docket Number | 7 Div. 921 |
Citation | 412 So.2d 1276 |
Parties | Mark CHAPMAN v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Al Shumaker of Burns, Shumaker & Davis, Centre, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen. and Jan A. Wade, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for writ of error coram nobis.
The defendant pled guilty to three indictments charging the offense of robbery. Alabama Code 1975, Section 13-3-110. Sentence in each case was eleven years' imprisonment (to run consecutively).
Section 13-3-110 specifically provides that the punishment for robbery is "imprisonment in the penitentiary for not less than 10 years, or as otherwise specified by law." Section 15-18-23 provides: "When no maximum limit to the duration of the imprisonment is prescribed by law, the court may, in its discretion, sentence the offender to imprisonment for the term of his natural life."
Before accepting the guilty plea, the trial judge erroneously advised the defendant of the maximum punishment.
Two weeks after the guilty plea had been accepted, the defendant adjudged guilty and sentenced, the defendant was brought back before the court and the maximum sentence was properly explained to him.
The defendant testified that no one told him he could withdraw his pleas of guilty and that it was his own impression that he could get the death penalty.
Defense counsel testified that he had advised the defendant of the proper minimum and maximum sentence prior to the entry of the guilty plea: "To the best of my knowledge, according to the sentences provided by law, I advised him it would be a minimum of ten up to life." Defense counsel also indicated that, after the trial judge had incorrectly stated the range of punishment, "the Judge was going to instruct him further as to the limits of punishment as to these cases and if he didn't desire to adhere to his plea of guilty that he could withdraw his plea of guilty and go to trial on it."
Informing a defendant of the nature of the charge and the consequences of a guilty plea is a crucial element in fashioning an intelligent and voluntary waiver. The defendant must be informed of maximum and minimum possible sentences as "an absolute constitutional prerequisite to acceptance of a guilty plea." Carter v. State, 291 Ala. 83, 85, 277 So.2d 896 (1973). However, the subjective beliefs of a defendant on the matter of how much sentence will be imposed, when unsupported by any...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hope v. State
...Summers v. State, 366 So.2d 336, 343 (Ala.Cr.App.1978), cert. denied, Ex parte Summers, 366 So.2d 346 (Ala.1979)." Chapman v. State, 412 So.2d 1276, 1277 (Ala.Cr.App.1982). "Counsel's competence, however, is presumed, ... and the defendant must rebut this presumption by proving that his att......
-
Ex parte Heaton
...and the consequences of a guilty plea is crucial to the defendant's fashioning an intelligent and voluntary waiver. Chapman v. State, 412 So.2d 1276, 1277 (Ala.Crim.App.1982). The fact that the defendant later becomes dissatisfied with his sentence will not constitute a ground for invalidat......
-
Banks v. State
...the consequences of a guilty plea is crucial to the defendant's fashioning an intelligent and voluntary waiver. Chapman v. State, 412 So.2d 1276, 1277 (Ala. Crim.App.1982). The fact that the defendant later becomes dissatisfied with his sentence will not constitute a ground for invalidating......
-
Lewis v. State
... ... State, 414 So.2d 488 (Ala.Cr.App.1982); Chapman v ... State, 412 So.2d 1276 (Ala.Cr.App.1982); McGhee v. State, 412 ... ...