Com. v. Estrada

• Decision Date: 03 July 2007
• Docket Number: No. 06-P-1328.,06-P-1328.
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. Gabriel ESTRADA.
• Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts

868 N.E.2d 1259

69 Mass. App. Ct. 514

COMMONWEALTH v. Gabriel ESTRADA.

No. 06-P-1328.

Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Argued May 14, 2007.

Decided July 3, 2007.

Christina E. Miller, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Ryan M. Schiff, Boston, for the defendant.

Present: GRASSO, BERRY, & COHEN, JJ.

GRASSO, J.

Before us are cross appeals arising from a District Court judge's ruling on the defendant's motion for new trial and to vacate his admissions to sufficient facts. The Commonwealth appeals from the judge's order vacating the defendant's admissions for failure to inquire during the colloquy "if he had any drugs or alcohol in his system." The defendant appeals from the judge's ruling that his admissions were intelligent and voluntary, and from the judge's failure to rule on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

We conclude that the judge erred in vacating the admissions because of the failure to make inquiry whether the defendant was under the influence of alcohol, drugs or medication. We also conclude that the defendant's admissions were intelligent and voluntary. Because the judge did not rule on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, and that claim should be resolved in the trial court in the first instance, we remand for consideration of that claim.

1. Background. On September 3, 2003, the defendant admitted to sufficient facts in the District Court on charges of assault, intimidation of a witness, and malicious destruction of property.¹ The Commonwealth and the defendant jointly recommended that the matters be continued without a finding, to be dismissed thereafter.² The recommendations differed only as to the appropriate continuance period; the Commonwealth recommended two years, and the defendant one year.

After a colloquy that included a factual recitation from the prosecutor, the judge concluded that sufficient facts existed to warrant a finding of guilt. She accepted the defendant's dispositional recommendation and continued the matters without a finding for one year. The judge properly advised the defendant of all three consequences of the alien warning. See G.L. c. 278, § 29D. See also G.L. c. 278, § 18, added by St.1992, c. 379, § 193 (admission to sufficient facts "shall be deemed a tender of a plea of guilty for purposes of procedures set forth in this section"); Commonwealth v. Villalobos, 437 Mass. 797, 800-801, 777 N.E.2d 116 (2002) (admission to sufficient facts is equivalent to plea of guilty for purposes of G.L. c. 278, § 29D). Thereafter, the defendant completed his probation supervision without event, and on September 3, 2004, all charges against him were dismissed without findings of guilt ever having entered.

On July 14, 2006, concerned over Federal immigration consequences and encouraged by the judge's allowance of a motion to vacate his brother Jaime Estrada's admissions to similar charges, the defendant moved to vacate his admissions.³ He asserted that his admissions were constitutionally inadequate because (1) the judge failed to inquire whether he was under the influence of any alcohol, drugs or medications; (2) his admissions were not intelligent and voluntary; and (3) his prior attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to discuss the possibility of impeaching the Commonwealth's only witness to the malicious destruction of property and witness intimidation offenses.

On August 15, 2006, without hearing from the Commonwealth, the judge allowed the defendant's motion "based on not asking [the defendant] if he had any drugs or alcohol in his system, not because he did not plea [sic] to the charge knowingly, willingly and voluntarily." The judge expressly rejected the defendant's alternate contention, that his admissions were not intelligent and voluntary, and the judge did not rule on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

2. Discussion. That Federal immigration law may work an unfortunate and harsh result is not a basis for vacating admissions or convictions that are otherwise lawful in all respects. See Commonwealth v. Villalobos, 52 Mass.App.Ct. 903, 904-905, 753 N.E.2d 830 (2001); S.C., 437 Mass. at 803-804, 777 N.E.2d 116 ("[d]ifficulties such as those presented here will continue to arise so long as the immigration warnings required by our State statute do not encompass changes in Federal immigration law"). We discern no lawful basis for the judge's vacating the admissions taken here.

a. Mootness. Relying on Burns v. Commonwealth, 430 Mass. 444, 446-447, 720 N.E.2d 798 (1999), the Commonwealth contends that the judge lacked the authority to vacate the defendant's admissions because guilty findings never entered and the matters were dismissed before the defendant moved to vacate the admissions. The dismissal of the charges "rendered moot any defects in the underlying proceedings." Id. at 447, 720 N.E.2d 798. See Commonwealth v. Villalobos, 437 Mass. at 802, 777 N.E.2d 116 (admission to sufficient facts followed by continuance without finding is not conviction).⁴ The defendant argues that the Commonwealth waived its mootness claim by failing to assert it below; he points, as well, to dictum in Keane v. Commonwealth, 439 Mass. 1002, 1002, 785 N.E.2d 675 (2003), that "collateral consequences [ ] may give him a continuing personal stake in the outcome [ ] despite the dismissal of the underlying complaint."

Where the extent of the adverse collateral consequences to the defendant is unclear,⁵ and it is clear that the defendant's admissions were intelligent and voluntary and that the judge erred in vacating the admissions, we decline to resolve the mootness issue.

b. Colloquy regarding alcohol, drugs or medications. A judge has an obligation not to accept an admission or plea from a defendant who lacks the capacity to make such a tender. See Commonwealth v. Robbins, 431 Mass. 442, 445, 727 N.E.2d 1157 (2000) (test of competence to plead guilty similar to that for standing trial). Likewise, defense counsel and the prosecutor have an obligation to alert the judge to any impediments to the defendant's ability to enter an admission or plea intelligently and voluntarily. See Commonwealth v. Nolan, 19 Mass.App.Ct. 491, 502, 475 N.E.2d 763 (1985). However, a judge's failure to inquire whether a defendant is under the influence of alcohol, drugs or medication at the time of an admission or plea, standing alone, does not warrant vacating the admission or plea. Such questioning is not required by rule. See Mass.R.Crim.P. 12(c), as amended, 399 Mass. 1215 (1987). Nor is it essential to establishing the intelligence or voluntariness of an admission or plea.⁶

Absent some indication that the defendant's judgment is impaired by alcohol, drugs or medication at the time of his admission or plea, particular questions from the judge probing that possibility, while helpful, are not essential to establishing the intelligence and voluntariness of the admission or plea.⁷ Much more probative are the judge's observations of the defendant during the colloquy, particularly the defendant's interactions with his attorney and the judge and the manner in which the defendant follows and responds to questions posed. Ordinarily, the judge may infer from these observations the defendant's understanding and competence to enter an admission or plea.

Here, the defendant has never claimed, in his affidavit or elsewhere, that he was under the influence of any substance during the colloquy. Contrast Commonwealth v. Gonzales, 43 Mass.App.Ct. 926, 926, 685 N.E.2d 1163 (1997). Moreover, the transcript of the colloquy reflects that the defendant was competent to tender his admissions freely and understandingly, unimpaired by alcohol, drugs or medication. The defendant answered all questions rationally and appropriately. He signified his understanding of the right to trial by jury and that he was giving up his right to trial, his privilege against self-incrimination, his right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, and his right to present evidence. He admitted that the prosecutor's factual recitation was true and acknowledged that no one forced him to admit to the charges.

In such circumstances, the defendant failed to present a credible reason to vacate his admissions because of incompetence due to consumption of alcohol, drugs or medication, and the judge erred in ruling otherwise. See Commonwealth v. Fanelli, 412 Mass. 497, 504, 590 N.E.2d 186 (1992).

c. Intelligence and voluntariness of the admissions. The judge was correct in concluding that the defendant's admissions were intelligent and voluntary. "A defendant's plea is intelligent when made with understanding of the nature of the charges (understanding of the law in relation to the facts) and the consequences of his plea (the legal consequences and constitutional rights he forgoes by pleading guilty rather than proceeding to trial); it is voluntary when free from coercion, duress, or improper inducements." Commonwealth v. Hiskin, 68 Mass.App.Ct. 633, 638, 863 N.E.2d 978 (2007).

Even beyond the inadequacy of the defendant's factual showing, the contemporaneous record establishes the intelligence and voluntariness of his admissions. The prosecutor's extended factual recitation related that the defendant, acting together with his brother Jaime, and with Jose Melendez and David Flores, committed the crimes charged. On March 17, 2003, a group of eight individuals, including the four codefendants, showed up at the victim's house and began throwing beer bottles. When the occupants came out to see what was going on, Melendez went behind one of them with a beer bottle as if to hit him in the head, and Jaime brandished a weapon, possibly a machete.⁸ On March 22, 2003, approximately four days after the defendants were arraigned on the assault charges, the victim, Ernesto Muniz, heard his car alarm and looked out the window. He saw "these four defendants" smashing all the windows in...