Moore v. Hinton, 74-2379
Decision Date | 02 June 1975 |
Docket Number | No. 74-2379,74-2379 |
Citation | 513 F.2d 781 |
Parties | Edward MOORE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. C. Snow HINTON et al., Individually and as members of the City Commission of Tuscaloosa, Alabama, et al., etc., Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Jack Drake, University, Ala., Edward Still, Birmingham, Ala., Ralph I. Knowles, Jr., University, Ala., for plaintiffs-appellants.
J. Wagner Finnell, City Atty., Glenn N. Baxter, Asst. City Atty., Tuscaloosa, Ala., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
Before TUTTLE, GODBOLD and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff-appellant Edward Moore brought this class action in federal district court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against members of the Tuscaloosa, Alabama, City Commission, the Judge of the city's Recorder's Court and the Director of the Alabama Department of Public Safety. Moore alleged that the procedure by which the Recorder's Court accepted pleas of guilty to charges of driving while intoxicated deprived him of certain constitutional rights. His individual claim was settled by consent decree, without prejudice to the class action, which was submitted on a set of stipulated facts which may be summarized as follows.
Prior to the convening of Recorder's Court, prospective defendants are advised that any of them wishing to plead guilty may discuss a settlement with the prosecuting attorney. After discussion of the facts of the particular case, the prosecutor usually offers to settle, always advising the defendant of the exact fine or sentence which he will receive. In every case in which the proposed settlement involves imprisonment, the defendant is informed of his right to counsel, and that if he cannot afford an attorney, he will be furnished one without cost to him.
Defendants are not advised that, as a result of their guilty plea, the state Department of Public Safety will suspend their driver's license. 1 Nor are they advised of their right to plead not guilty, their right to counsel, or their right to appeal to a state circuit court in which they would receive a jury trial de novo.
For reasons explained below, we affirm the district court's dismissal of the cause of action.
Appellant's most compelling argument is that a defendant cannot enter a guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily in such a situation unless he is informed that as a consequence of his plea, he will be required to forfeit his driver's license for a period of time. Appellant relies on the broad, incontestable principles established by such cases as Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 1469, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970) () and Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243, 244, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 1712, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969) ( ) Loss of a driver's license, appellant argues, is just such a consequence; due process therefore requires, he concludes, that a defendant be informed of this consequence before he can voluntarily and intelligently plead guilty.
Of crucial importance here, however, is the fact that the Alabama Department of Public Safety, not the court, deprives the defendant of his license, acting under authority of 36 Ala.Code § 68. The court merely accepts the defendant's plea, and sentences him to a fine and/or imprisonment. The Department of Public Safety then institutes a separate proceeding for suspension of his license; this suspension is not, therefore, punishment imposed by the court as a result of the guilty plea, but a collateral consequence of the defendant's conviction.
Numerous cases establish that defendants need not be informed of such collateral consequences in order to voluntarily and intelligently plead guilty. In Meaton v. United States, 328 F.2d 379 (5th Cir. 1964) for example, this court rejected the contention that appellant should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea to a mail fraud charge because he had not been informed that, as a convicted felon, he would automatically forfeit his rights to vote and to travel abroad. In Wadley v. Davis, 445 F.2d 1, 3 (5th Cir. 1971) this court held that appellants were not entitled, before pleading guilty to a crime of "moral turpitude," to be informed that if they did so plead, they would automatically be struck from the local voting rolls; "(T)he loss of franchise is a result of the conviction, not the plea." Cf. Trujillo v. United States, 377 F.2d 266 (5th Cir. 1967) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Landry v. Hoepfner
... ... as a collateral consequence of his conviction, his driver's license will be suspended." Moore v. Hinton, 513 F.2d 781, 782-83 (5th Cir.1975). Indeed, several courts have held that license ... ...
-
State v. Aquino, 24431.
... ... 995, 96 S.Ct. 2209, 48 L.Ed.2d 820 (1976); and loss of the right to a driver's license; Moore v. Hinton, 513 F.2d 781, 782 (5th Cir.1975) ... 8. "Defense counsel has ... ...
-
Landry v. Hoepfner
... ... as a collateral consequence of his conviction, his driver's license will be suspended." Moore v. Hinton, 513 F.2d 781, 782-83 (5th Cir.1975). Further, several courts have held that license ... ...
-
People v. Pozo
... ... F.2d 557, 561 (5th Cir.1980) (a plea's possible enhancing effects on a subsequent sentence); Moore v. Hinton, 513 F.2d 781 (5th Cir.1975) (suspension of auto license); United States v. Crowley, 529 ... ...
-
Chapter 2 - § 2.4 • REQUIREMENTS OF A VALID GUILTY PLEA
...defendant need not be advised of possible suspension of a driver's license as a collateral consequence of a guilty plea. Moore v. Hinton, 513 F.2d 781 (5th Cir. 1975). Similarly, a plea is not invalid merely because the defendant was not warned that upon violation of the terms of his probat......
-
Collateral Effects of a Criminal Conviction in Colorado - June 2006 - Criminal Law
...21. People v. Ruiz, 935 P.2d 68 (Colo.App.1996). 22. CRS § 18-1.3-801. 23. Moore, supra note 2 at 324; see also Moore v. Hinton, 513 F.2d 781 (5th Cir. 1975) (before pleading guilty to driving while intoxicated, court need not inform defendant that his driver's license will be suspended as ......