Pate v. State, CR-91-354
| Decision Date | 12 June 1992 |
| Docket Number | CR-91-354 |
| Citation | 601 So.2d 210 |
| Parties | Joseph Lester PATE v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Charles Ned Wright, Wedowee, for appellant.
James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Andy S. Poole, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Joseph Lester Pate was indicted for the offense of theft of property in the first degree, in violation of § 13A-8-3, Code of Alabama 1975, on August 29, 1991. Pate was arraigned on September 25, 1991, and entered a plea of not guilty.
On October 1, 1991, Pate filed a motion to dismiss the charge against him based upon his alleged previous filing in May 1991 of a motion for speedy trial in the original district court case. In his motion to dismiss, Pate alleged that the State's failure to prosecute him within 90 days of the filing of the district court case required dismissal of the charges against him. On November 15, 1991, defense counsel filed a motion for a mental evaluation of Pate based upon recent receipt of information that counsel asserted brought Pate's competency to stand trial into question.
On November 20, 1991, Pate appeared with his counsel before the court, and the court indicated that it had been informed that Pate desired to enter a guilty plea. The court informed Pate that it was necessary to determine that Pate understood the nature of the charges against him and the consequences of his plea and to determine that the plea was voluntarily and intelligently made and that a factual basis existed for the plea. The court also referred to an executed explanation of rights and plea of guilt form and asked defense counsel whether he had explained Pate's rights to him. Defense counsel replied that he had.
The court then stated that it wanted to place on the record the fact that Pate had contacted the court the day before concerning his desire to enter a plea of guilty and that Pate wanted to do so in spite of the fact that his mental condition had been discussed in court previously and that his counsel had obtained a continuance to have Pate examined, before trial, by a mental health expert, paid for by Pate, and a mental health expert paid for by the state. The court indicated that it did not believe the examinations would be beneficial to Pate under state law but that, based upon Pate's mental history, the court felt compelled to grant defense counsel's motion.
The court further stated that it was of the impression that Pate was aware of what he was doing in entering the guilty plea, particularly in consideration of the fact that Pate was already serving a life sentence as a habitual offender for first degree theft and third degree burglary and that the proposed plea bargain agreement was for a 15-year sentence, which would likely add little time to Pate's pre-existing life sentence. The court indicated that it believed Pate's decision to plead guilty was rational. The court further noted that defense counsel had been contacted and had participated in a discussion off the record. The court stated that it had made it clear in the off-the-record discussion that whether Pate wanted to enter a guilty plea or pursue his case was immaterial to the court and that the court was not trying to force Pate to plead guilty. Pate acknowledged that the statement made by the court on the record was correct.
The court then conducted a colloquy with Pate in which Pate acknowledged that his attorney had discussed the case with him and had informed him of his constitutional rights. Pate understood that he would be represented by counsel during trial and that he understood the charges against him. The court informed Pate of the potential range of punishment, including the potential range if the State provided evidence of prior felony convictions. The State indicated that it did have certified copies of six prior convictions that would be placed in the record.
The court stated that under the plea bargain agreement entered into by Pate, Pate would be sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment based upon application of the Habitual Felony Offender Act, with this sentence to run concurrently with his present life sentence. Pate acknowledged that he understood that he had the right to enter pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect and to maintain such pleas at trial. Pate acknowledged that he understood his right against self-incrimination and that that right was waived by his guilty plea. Pate acknowledged that he had the right to a jury trial and that his guilty plea waived such right. Pate further acknowledged that he understood that he had the right to cross-examine witnesses against him, the right...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ingram v. State
...it has not been properly preserved and presented.' " Dickey v. State, 901 So.2d 750, 756 (Ala.Crim.App.2004), quoting Pate v. State, 601 So.2d 210, 213 (Ala.Crim.App.1992).5 Also, because no pro hac vice applications are contained in the record, this Court has no means of determining whethe......
-
State v. Martin
...record to indicate that the State raised this claim below; therefore, it is not preserved for appellate review. See Pate v. State, 601 So.2d 210, 213 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992) ("An issue raised for the first time on appeal is not subject to appellate review because it has not been properly pre......
-
Osgood v. State
...first time on appeal is not subject to appellate review because it has not been properly preserved and presented.’ Pate v. State, 601 So.2d 210, 213 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992). " ‘[T]o preserve an issue for appellate review, it must be presented to the trial court by a timely and specific motio......
-
Hulsey v. State
...first time on appeal is not subject to appellate review because it has not been properly preserved and presented.” Pate v. State, 601 So.2d 210, 213 (Ala.Crim.App.1992). “ ‘[T]o preserve an issue for appellate review, it must be presented to the trial court by a timely and specific motion s......