Rios v. State, A20A1999

• Court: United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
• Writing for the Court: Dillard, Presiding Judge.
• Citation: 358 Ga.App. 359,855 S.E.2d 372
• Decision Date: 08 February 2021
• Docket Number: A20A1999
• Parties: RIOS v. The STATE.

358 Ga.App. 359
855 S.E.2d 372

RIOS
v.
The STATE.

A20A1999

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

February 8, 2021

855 S.E.2d 373

David Edward Clark, for Appellant.

Stephen Anthony Fern, Atlanta, Daniel J. Porter, Lawrenceville, Patsy A. Austin-Gatson, for Appellee.

Dillard, Presiding Judge.

Approximately ten years ago, Hugo Rios¹ entered an Alford plea² to two counts of violating the Georgia Controlled Substances Act. Following the trial court's grant of his petition for an out-of-time appeal, Rios challenges those convictions, arguing that they should be vacated because the trial court did not resolve the conflict between his claims of innocence and guilty plea and because his plea was not knowing and voluntary. For the reasons set forth infra , we affirm.

The record reflects that in 2010, Rios entered an Alford plea to two drug offenses. Years later, in 2019, the trial court granted Rios's motion for an out-of-time appeal. This appeal follows.

When a defendant challenges the validity of a guilty plea, the State has "the burden of showing that the plea was made intelligently and voluntarily."³ And the State may satisfy its burden to show that a plea was knowingly and voluntarily made by demonstrating "on the record of the guilty plea hearing that the defendant understood the rights being waived and possible consequences of the plea or by pointing to extrinsic evidence affirmatively showing that the plea was voluntary and knowing."⁴ More specifically, to establish that Rios's guilty plea was voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently made, under Boykin v. Alabama⁵ , it must be shown that he was "informed of the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, the right to a trial by jury, and the right to confront one's accusers."⁶

So, when it comes to an Alford plea, the trial court "may accept a guilty plea from a defendant who claims innocence if the defendant has intelligently concluded that it is in his best interest to plead guilty and the court has inquired into the factual basis for the plea and sought to resolve the conflict between the plea and the claim of innocence."⁷ Furthermore, the voluntariness and intelligence of an Alford plea is judged "by the same standard as a routine guilty plea: whether the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant."⁸

Here, at the outset of the plea hearing, Rios's counsel informed the trial court that she explained to her client that he had two options for resolving his drug charges—either enter a guilty plea or go to trial. At the time of the hearing, there was no plea offer still "on the table."⁹ Rios's counsel also noted that the mandatory minimum for his offenses was 30 years to serve 25, which was the

855 S.E.2d 374

sentence Rios's co-defendants received when they pleaded guilty. The court then addressed Rios, asking if he was satisfied with his attorney, and he responded by claiming that he was innocent of the charged offenses. Rios said he could not afford another attorney, and the court informed Rios that his current attorney would remain his attorney in the event he proceeded to a jury trial. Rios responded that he did not want to go to trial.

At this point, Rios's attorney asked for a few minutes to speak with her client about the case, and the court addressed Rios, stating: "Sir, [your] attorney wants to make sure you're aware of your options before you go to trial. That's why she had you brought in here, sir. But it's your decision whether to plead guilty or not. If you stand mute or you don't know what to do, the Court will order a trial to be conducted." Then Rios asked, "But I'm not going to trial, am I?" The court did not respond to this question.

After Rios had an opportunity to consult with his counsel, she informed the court that he wished to enter a non-negotiated Alford plea to the charged offenses. And defense counsel then summarized her conversation with Rios:

Judge, just so there's no confusion with regard to the plea colloquy, we are seeking to enter this plea under Alford vs. North Carolina . I know that's in the Court's discretion. Based on my conversations with Mr. Rios, he does tell me that essentially he was present at the scene but was not engaged in or aware of or actively participating in the trafficking of the drugs that were in the household. But he does understand and we've discussed the evidence in the case. After many consultations with myself and reviewing the evidence in the case, he's made the decision that it's in his best interest to resolve this case with a plea as opposed to taking his chances with a jury.

The trial court confirmed with Rios that he wanted to plead guilty. Then, after the State claimed it could rebut the "mere presence defense," it provided the court with a factual basis for Rios's plea.

According to the State, the evidence would show that on May 10, 2009, members of the local Drug Enforcement Administration went to an address in Duluth, Georgia. Rios answered the door, and when he saw police officers, he slammed the door and fled to a bathroom. The officers kicked down the door, and when they entered the bathroom, they found bags containing methamphetamine stuffed into a hole in the wall. Ultimately, the officers found 200 pounds of methamphetamine in the house and another "large quantity" of the drug in a truck owned and operated by Rios. Additionally, approximately 2.2 pounds of cocaine was "[m]ixed in" with the methamphetamine.

Rios then testified regarding his decision to enter an Alford plea.¹⁰ Specifically, he indicated that he fully understood the charges against him. He further noted his understanding that, by pleading guilty, he was giving up his right to (1) a trial by jury; (2) the presumption of innocence; (3) confront the witnesses against him; (4) subpoena witnesses for his defense; (5) testify himself or present other evidence; (6) have an attorney represent him throughout the trial; and (7) not incriminate himself. When the trial court asked Rios whether he still wanted to...