Fields v. State, 1 Div. 749

• Decision Date: 23 November 1976
• Docket Number: 1 Div. 749
• Citation: 339 So.2d 1088
• Parties: Benny Ray FIELDS, alias v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 1088

339 So.2d 1088

Benny Ray FIELDS, alias v. STATE.

1 Div. 749.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

Nov. 23, 1976.

William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and Vanzetta Penn Durant, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BOOKOUT, Judge.

On guilty pleas, appellant was sentenced to five concurrent terms of twenty years imprisonment on five robbery indictments.

Each judgment entry makes the finding that:

'. . . (1) the defendant understands his constitutional rights and the nature of the crime charged in this indictment, and the consequences of his guilty plea, and (2) the defendant understandingly and voluntarily waives his constitutional rights and pleads guilty.'

There is no colloquy between the trial judge and the appellant anywhere in the record. There is an Ireland form (Ireland v. State, 47 Ala.App. 65, 250 So.2d 602) executed by the appellant and witnessed by his attorney.

Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969) requires that the record must clearly show that the appellant intelligently and voluntarily entered the guilty plea and that he understood certain rights, enumerated therein.

While a colloquy between the trial court and the appellant is definitely preferable, Twyman v. State, 293 Ala. 75, 300 So.2d 124 (1974) allows the trial court to accept a guilty plea without a colloquy provided certain standards are met. In Twyman, our Supreme Court found that:

'The trial judge, the defendant, and defendant's attorney all attest over their respective signatures that the matters and things stated in 'Court's Exhibit A' were read by defendant or read to defendant. Defendant acknowledges that this was done and that he understands those matters and things.

'. . . There is no rule of law that requires or even suggests that it must be presumed that the trial judge, the defendant, defendant's attorney, or the judgment entry do not speak the truth. The judgment is not contradicted by the instant record . . ..'

In Starks v. State, 56 Ala.App. 552, 323 So.2d 735 (1975) this Court upheld the acceptance of a guilty plea without a full colloquy, transribed by the court reporter and entered in the record, where: (1) an Ireland form had been executed by the defendant and attested by his attorney, the circuit judge and the circuit clerk, (2) the judgment entry recited that before accepting the guilty plea, the trial court ascertained that the plea was intelligently and voluntarily made and that the appellant understood his Boykin rights which the judgment entry specifically enumerated, and (3) a short court reporter's transcript showed that the trial court asked the appellant if he had read the Ireland form or had it read to him, and the defendant answered in the affirmative.

In Bland v. State, 56 Ala.App. 547, 323 So.2d 730 (1975) this Court affirmed the conviction of Bland on a guilty plea where there was no colloquy at all recited in the record. However, in Bland, a complete Ireland form had been executed by the defendant and attested by his attorney and the circuit judge acknowledging that the defendant understood the rights enumerated therein and voluntarily entered a plea of guilty.

Likewise, in Bland, the judgment entry in the record recited that before the trial judge accepted the guilty plea, he ascertained that the plea was, 'intelligently and voluntarily made and also that the defendant understood (1) the privilege against self-incrimination, (2) the right to a trial by jury, (3) the right to be...