Legrand v. Weber

• Decision Date: 01 October 2014
• Docket Number: No. 26907.,26907.
• Citation: 855 N.W.2d 121
• Parties: John LEGRAND, Petitioner and Appellant, v. Douglas WEBER, Warden, South Dakota State Penitentiary, Respondent and Appellee.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

855 N.W.2d 121

John LEGRAND, Petitioner and Appellant

v.Douglas WEBER, Warden, South Dakota State Penitentiary, Respondent and Appellee.

No. 26907.

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

Considered on Briefs on Aug. 25, 2014.

Decided Oct. 1, 2014.

Jeff Larson, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, for petitioner and appellant.

Marty J. Jackley, Attorney General, Kirsten E. Jasper, Assistant Attorney General, Pierre, South Dakota, for respondent and appellee.

Opinion

WILBUR, Justice.

[¶ 1.] John LeGrand, serving a 40–year sentence for a conviction of first-degree manslaughter, appeals the habeas court's judgment and order denying his application for a writ of habeas corpus. LeGrand claims that (1) his guilty plea was constitutionally deficient; (2) he was denied due process of law and his right to a jury trial when the circuit court denied his motion to withdraw his guilty plea; and (3) he was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel. We affirm the habeas court.

Background

[¶ 2.] John LeGrand, an independent building contractor, lived in a trailer park in Huron, South Dakota with his wife and three children. On the morning of April 16, 2009, LeGrand's employee R.J. Hein confronted LeGrand about unpaid wages. A short time later, LeGrand was driving when a vehicle in the opposite lane turned and purposefully blocked LeGrand's path. Hein exited the other vehicle and approached LeGrand's vehicle. As LeGrand accelerated to avoid Hein, Hein slipped on the road. LeGrand testified that he believed he ran over Hein's leg. Later that day, a mutual friend told LeGrand that Hein was upset and that “there was going to be problems.”

[¶ 3.] Around 5:30 that evening, Hein arrived at LeGrand's trailer while LeGrand, his wife, and his two youngest children were at home. LeGrand testified that he equipped himself with a loaded shotgun out of fear and confronted Hein at the front of his home. As LeGrand approached Hein, Hein charged into his home with a knife. LeGrand fired four shots at Hein fatally wounding him. LeGrand alleged that all of the shots occurred in the hallway of his home. Law enforcement discovered Hein's body on the driveway.¹ Two knives were found on Hein's person and a third knife was found near him on the entry to LeGrand's home. Autopsy reports indicate that, at the time of Hein's death, Hein had a 0.30 blood alcohol content level.

[¶ 4.] On July 29, 2009, a Beadle County Grand Jury indicted LeGrand for murder in the second degree, manslaughter in the first degree, and possession of a firearm by a felon. LeGrand received court-appointed counsel. A year later, on July 14, 2010, LeGrand was arrested in Meade County for nine new crimes, including two counts of distribution of a controlled substance to a minor, distribution of marijuana, and possession of a controlled drug or substance and marijuana.²

[¶ 5.] On September 8, 2010, LeGrand signed a plea agreement covering the charges in both Beadle and Meade Counties. The plea agreement provided that LeGrand plead guilty to manslaughter in the first degree and that LeGrand waive “any affirmative defense, including self-defense, and any claims of excusable or justifiable homicide....” The plea agreement further stipulated that the State would recommend a sentence not in excess of 40 years and not fewer than 30 years.³ That same day, LeGrand appeared before the Honorable Vincent A. Foley to plead guilty to the counts agreed upon in the plea agreement. Judge Foley discussed with LeGrand, in extensive detail, his statutory and constitutional rights, and then explained to LeGrand that he would be waiving certain rights.⁴ At one point, Judge Foley asked LeGrand about his motivation for entering the plea agreement, and LeGrand responded “[b]ecause of the other charges ... [i]n Meade County.” LeGrand stated that he thought the plea agreement was a fair compromise.

[¶ 6.] LeGrand acknowledged to the court that he understood the plea agreement, he had the opportunity to review the document fully, he did in fact review the document with his attorneys, his attorneys explained the relevant legal terms to him, and he did not have any questions about the document. LeGrand stated that he was 42 years of age, understood English, and held a high-school diploma. Judge Foley asked LeGrand if he was presently on any medication. LeGrand responded that he was on anxiety medication and that it helped him understand the proceedings and function day-to-day. LeGrand signed the plea agreement and pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the first degree. Judge Foley determined that LeGrand's guilty plea was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.

[¶ 7.] On October 18, LeGrand filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea and submitted an affidavit to the court. The affidavit explained that LeGrand wanted to withdraw his guilty plea because, after consideration, he believed that he had a valid defense of self-defense. The circuit court acknowledged that defense was indeed tenable, but ultimately, the court found that the motion to withdraw was simply a “change in mind.” On December 20, 2010, the circuit court denied LeGrand's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.⁵

[¶ 8.] On December 28, 2010, LeGrand appealed to this Court to determine whether the circuit court erred in refusing to grant LeGrand's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. This Court affirmed the circuit court. State v. Legrand, 804 N.W.2d 78 (2011) (unpublished table decision). On April, 23, 2012, LeGrand filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. On November 6 and November 27, 2012, after retaining new counsel, LeGrand filed an amended and second amended application for a writ of habeas corpus claiming violations of his due process rights and a denial of the right to effective assistance of counsel. On April 22, 2013, an evidentiary hearing was held before the Honorable Robert L. Timm. The habeas court denied LeGrand relief and determined that LeGrand was provided competent counsel.

[¶ 9.] LeGrand raises the following issues for our review:

1. Whether LeGrand's guilty plea was voluntary and intelligent.

2. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion when it denied LeGrand's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

3. Whether LeGrand was denied his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel.

Standard of Review

[¶ 10.] “A habeas corpus claim is a collateral attack on a final judgment and therefore our review is limited.” Davis v. Weber, 2013 S.D. 88, ¶ 9, 841 N.W.2d 244, 246 (quoting Fast Horse v. Weber, 2013 S.D. 74, ¶ 9, 838 N.W.2d 831, 835–36 ). “Habeas Corpus can only be used to review (1) whether the court had jurisdiction of the crime and the person of the defendant; (2) whether the sentence was authorized by law; and (3) in certain cases whether an incarcerated defendant has been deprived of basic constitutional rights.” Id. “We review findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard, while we give no deference to conclusions of law and thereby apply the de novo standard.” Erickson v. Weber, 2008 S.D. 30, ¶ 17, 748 N.W.2d 739, 744. The standard of review for “ineffective assistance of counsel is essentially a mixed question of law and fact.” Fast Horse, 2013 S.D. 74, ¶ 10, 838 N.W.2d at 836 (quoting Boyles v. Weber, 2004 S.D. 31, ¶ 6, 677 N.W.2d 531, 536 ). This Court, however, “can substitute its own judgment as to whether counsel's representation was ineffective.”Davi v. Class, 2000 S.D. 30, ¶ 15, 609 N.W.2d 107, 112.

Analysis

[¶ 11.] 1. Whether LeGrand's guilty plea was voluntary and intelligent.

[¶ 12.] LeGrand argues that his guilty plea violated his due process rights because it was not voluntary and intelligent. As a basis, LeGrand alleges that neither the circuit court nor his trial counsel adequately canvassed him on the availability of the defenses of self-defense and justifiable homicide or the State's burden of proof for affirmative defenses. LeGrand claims that, absent adequate canvassing, his guilty plea was not voluntary and intelligent. Furthermore, LeGrand raises for the first time on appeal an argument that his sentence was not authorized by law due to procedural violations of SDCL chapter 23A–7 (Rule 11), and, but for these violations, he would not have entered a guilty plea.

[¶ 13.] Due process requires that certain constitutional and procedural rights be followed when a defendant enters a guilty plea. State v. Apple, 2008 S.D. 120, ¶ 10, 759 N.W.2d 283, 287. A plea of guilty waives the constitutionally guaranteed rights against self-incrimination, the right to a trial by jury, and the right to confront one's accusers. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 1712, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). Because the defendant is waiving constitutionally guaranteed rights, an admission of guilt must be voluntary and intelligent. State v. Outka, 2014 S.D. 11, ¶ 32, 844 N.W.2d 598, 607. A guilty plea is voluntary and intelligent when the record affirmatively shows that “the accused has a full understanding of his constitutional rights and, having that understanding, waives these rights by a plea of guilty.” Id. (quoting State v. Beckley, 2007 S.D. 122, ¶ 8, 742 N.W.2d 841, 843 ).

[¶ 14.] Certain criminal procedural rules act to ensure that guilty pleas are voluntary and intelligent. Apple, 2008 S.D. 120, ¶ 10, 759 N.W.2d at 287 ; see Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 ; SDCL chapter 23A–7. SDCL 23A–7–2 (Rule 11(a) ) and SDCL 23A–7–14 (Rule 11(f) ) require the circuit court to assess whether a factual basis exists for a plea of guilty. In addition, SDCL 23A–7–4 (Rule 11(c) ) sets forth a list of guidelines for a court to follow before accepting the plea to determine that a guilty plea is voluntary and intelligent. Outka, 2014 S.D. 11, ¶ 33, 844 N.W.2d at 608. Absent from these guidelines is an explicit requirement that a court canvass a defendant as to any potential affirmative defenses. See SDCL 23A–7–2 (Rule 11(a) ); SDCL 23A–7–4 (Rule 11(c) ); SDCL 23A–7–14 (Rule 11(f) ); Lodermeier v. State, 273 N.W.2d 163, 166 (S.D.1978) (holding that there is no...