King v. State

• Decision Date: 30 April 1976
• Docket Number: No. C--75--793,C--75--793
• Citation: 1976 OK CR 103,553 P.2d 529
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
• Parties: John Paul KING, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Respondent.

Page 529

553 P.2d 529

John Paul KING, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Respondent.

No. C--75--793.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

April 30, 1976.

Cal Hoover, Watson & Hoover, Ada, for petitioner.

Larry Derryberry, Atty. Gen., Robert L. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., Joe Mark Elkouri, Legal Intern, for respondent.

OPINION

BLISS, Judge.

Petitioner, John Paul King, hereinafter referred to as defendant, entered a plea of guilty in the District Court, Pontotoc County, Case No. CRF--75--130, to the charge of Larceny of an Automobile, in violation of 21 O.S.1971, § 1720. The judge imposed a sentence of three (3) years imprisonment, whereupon the defendant made application to withdraw his plea of guilty. After an evidentiary hearing mandated by this Court in Case No. O--75--671 was held, the trial judge denied defendant's application. Defendant has filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking the vacation of that plea of guilty. We assumed jurisdiction.

Briefly stated, the facts are as follows. Defendant waived his preliminary hearing and sought immediate arraignment. At arraignment defendant tendered a plea of guilty, whereupon the court extensively questioned the defendant regarding the voluntariness and intelligent nature of the tendered plea. Based upon plea negotiations between the Assistant District Attorney and defense counsel, the District Attorney recommended that defendant be sentenced to the minimum term of three (3) years and that all but the first year be suspended. After the District Attorney's recommendation, defendant waived his right to a presentence investgation and sought immediate sentencing. After further proceedings the trial judge accepted the tendered plea and imposed judgment and sentence of three (3) years in the custody of the Department of Corrections at the state penitentiary. Defendant thereupon made immediate application to withdraw his plea of guilty and the trial judge reserved decision thereon.

The pertinent portion of the transcript of the proceedings immediately before pronouncement of judgment and sentence reads as follows:

'THE COURT: Have you plead guilty because you expected me to follow this recommendation?

'THE DEFENDANT: No.

'MR. HOOVER (COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT): No, I have advised him that the Court, if the Court desires, could sentence him to twenty years in prison, is that not correct?

'THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

'THE COURT: Would you plead guilty if I told you that I would sentence you to three years in the state penitentiary?

'THE DEFENDANT: (No response.)

'MR. HOOVER: I think it would, as his defense counsel, I would advise him not to plead guilty under those circumstances.

'MR. POWELL (DISTRICT ATTORNEY): In that case, that gets the Court involved in a plea negotiation. You know the Court could send him up for twenty years--

'MR. HOOVER: He understands--

'MR. POWELL: I don't believe you can negotiate with the Court as to what he's going to do. . . .' (Tr. 20)

At the hearing on the application to withdraw the plea of guilty the trial judge refused to hear evidence in support of defendant's application and overruled same. This Court then issued a writ of mandamus in Case No. O--75--671, compelling the trial court to hear evidence in support of defendant's application.

At the evidentiary hearing, all evidence was by stipulation and can be summarized as follows. Defendant was twenty-three years of age, married and had one child of approximately six weeks of age. It was determined that on October 12, 1975, defendant was in a state of intoxication when he left Pauls Valley in his automobile. Thereafter, defendant wrecked his automobile and then wandered aimlessly around the country on foot, finally falling into a farm pond whereupon his clothes became soaked and muddy and he lost his shoes. Subsequently, he stumbled upon the truck in question at Garr Corner, got in it, started it and then drove away. The owner of said truck observed same and made chase of defendant. Defendant stopped the truck, which had not been damaged, approximately two to two and a half miles down the road, turned off the engine and had been sitting in the truck for awhile when the owner arrived. Defendant was then taken out of the truck at gunpoint and held there until Deputy Sheriff Bond arrived. Defendant was then transported to the county jail where he was incarcerated and Deputy Bond told him that he would put in a good word for him with the District Attorney if defendant would cooperate, which he did.

Thereafter, the Assistant District Attorney represented to defendant's mother, wife and court appointed attorney that if defendant would plead guilty the State would recommend to the court that defendant serve three years in the state penitentiary, suspended, except for the first year. Defendant was advised by his mother, wife and court appointed attorney to plead guilty in light of the State's recommendation.

Once again, we are confronted with a defendant attacking his conviction upon the allegation that the trial court erred in refusing to allow him to withdraw his plea. We have, in the past, repeatedly emphasized the serious remifications of an accused's plea of guilty and the necessity of an adequate record reflecting compliance with procedures articulated by this Court to insure an accused's plea of guilty is voluntarily and intelligently entered as mandated by the United States Supreme Court in Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). ¹ We are now implored to reverse the defendant's conviction and allow him to withdraw his plea of guilty for the reason the trial judge who accepted the plea abused his discretion by refusing to allow the defendant to withdraw his plea of guilty when the trial judge refused to follow the District Attorney's recommendation of punishment which was the result of plea negotiations between the defendant, his counsel and the District Attorney. ² The State urges the law is well established that any recommendation of punishment by the District Attorney is not binding upon the court and the trial court has the sole discretion whether or not to grant the plea agreement and whether or not to allow the defendant to withdraw his plea of guilty. See Lakey v. State, Okl.Cr., 453 P.2d 329 (1969); Thomas v. State, Okl.Cr., 491 P.2d 781 (1971); Feldhausen v. Oklahoma City, Okl.Cr., 481 P.2d 793 (1973); and Simpson v. State, Okl.Cr., 510 P.2d 280 (1973). Thus, the State contends that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to follow the District Attorney's recommendation of punishment, nor did it abuse its discretion in refusing to allow the defendant to withdraw his plea of guilty.

We now reassess our views on the issue delineated by the defendant to-wit: Should the defendant be allowed to withdraw his plea of guilty when the trial court does not accept the District Attorney's dispositional recommendation?

Plea discussions and plea agreements, 'sometimes loosely called 'plea bargaining", Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971), are appropriate but should not be hidden behind the in-court hearing at which time the accused often feels he is expected to state falsely that no agreements or promises have been made. ³ Such practices eliminate judicial supervision as an effective control of the inherent risks of 'plea bargaining.' Only by explicit understanding of the negotiated plea by all parties can we be assured that this 'essential component of the administration of justice is properly administered.' See Santobello, supra.

We are of the opinion that the current procedure governing the trial court's acceptance of a defendant's plea of guilty articulated by this Court in Smith, supra, and codified in Feaster, supra, requires modification by us at this time. The current procedure surrounding the tender of a plea of guilty by an accused and the acceptance by the trial court is as follows:

'In order to clarify the procedure, for all future cases, to be followed by the trial court in determining whether a defendant is voluntarily and understandingly entering a plea of guilty, whether represented by court-appointed counsel, public defender, retained counsel, or appears without counsel, the trial court must first determine if the defendant is competent by interrogation of defense counsel and the defendant as to the defendant's past and present mental state as well as by observation of the defendant. In the event the court finds there is substantial question as to the competency of the defendant, the court should commit the defendant for observation as provided by law. If the trial court determines the defendant is competent, he must then advise the defendant:

'1. That he has a right to court-appointed counsel, if the defendant appears without counsel;

'2. That he has a right to trial by jury;

'3. That he has a right to be confronted by witness who would testify against him;

'4. That he has a privilege against compulsory self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment;

'5. The nature and consequences of such plea, including the minimum and maximum punishment provided by law for the crime of which he stands charged;

'6. That the trial court is not bound by any recommendation made by the prosecuting attorney or any agreement entered into by defense attorney and the prosecuting attorney.

'An affirmative waiver of these requirements must be reflected in the record prior to the acceptance of a plea of guilty.' at 1329

Such a procedure allows for at least the 'taint of false inducement' even when the trial court properly advises the accused that the trial court is not bound by the District Attorney's dispositional recommendation. ⁴ Therefore, in all future cases the following procedure is applicable;

PROCEDURE FOR TRIAL COURT'S ACCEPTANCE OF DEFENDANT'S PLEA OF GUILTY

I. Determining if the defendant is competent;

A. The trial court must first determine if the defendant is competent...