State v. Desbiens
Decision Date | 31 May 1977 |
Docket Number | No. 7509,7509 |
Citation | 117 N.H. 433,374 A.2d 651 |
Parties | STATE of New Hampshire v. Peter M. DESBIENS. |
Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
David H. Souter, Atty. Gen., and Edward N. Damon, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Normandin, Cheney & O'Neil, Laconia (David O. Huot, Laconia, orally), for defendant.
The defendant, after trial by jury, was found guilty of the felony of possession of a controlled drug, second offense (RSA 318-B:26) and sentenced to a prison term of from two-and-one-half to five years. Prior to trial defendant moved to suppress evidence of the prior misdemeanor conviction, on the ground that his plea of nolo contendere thereto was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. The Presiding Justice (Keller, C. J.) after hearing denied the motion and all questions of law raised by defendant's exception were reserved and transferred.
The motion to suppress alleged the following:
At the hearing on the motion, the only evidence introduced by the state was a certified copy of the conviction which indicated that defendant had benefit of counsel. The defendant refused to go forward with any evidence, contending that the "record" must show that the plea was voluntary and intelligent, and that the "record" in this case, showing only the facts of conviction and representation by counsel, was thus deficient. Defendant argues on appeal, as he did below, that the prosecution has failed to meet its burden of proof, and that it was not incumbent on him to offer any evidence during the hearing.
The defendant relies on Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969), in which the United States Supreme Court held that a guilty plea cannot stand unless there is an affirmative showing on the record that the plea was entered voluntarily and understandingly. See, Note, The Supreme Court, 1968 Term, 83 Harv.L.Rev. 62, 181-82 (1969). Under Boykin the trial judge is required to canvass Boykin v. Alabama, supra at 244, 89 S.Ct. at 1712 (citations omitted). Boykin thus requires both a "canvass" by the court and the making of a record of that canvass.
We note that the defendant does not contest the existence of the prior conviction herein. Clearly, the burden of proof on this issue was upon (and met by) the state. Rather, the defendant seeks to undermine the conviction itself. Assuming, arguendo, that the defendant may proceed in this manner, his challenge would be in the nature of a collateral attack. See State v. Gosselin, 117 N.H. ---, 370 A.2d 264 (1977); State v. Clough, 115 N.H. 7, 332 A.2d 386 (1975). It is clear that ordinarily in a collateral attack the initial burden of going forward with evidence is upon the petitioner. See Fortier v. Frink, 92 N.H. 50, 24 A.2d 604 (1942); Note, Developments in the Law Federal Habeas Corpus, 83 Harv.L.Rev. 1038, 1140 (1970).
Defendant suggests that he should be relieved of this burden because there is a violation of the requirement in Boykin that there be an affirmative showing on the record that the plea was knowing and voluntary. Notwithstanding this proposition, we think there was no error in the instant case. Apart from defendant's allegations as to defects in the "affirmative showing" of the record, defendant made only the conclusory allegation that his plea "was not voluntarily and intelligently made." Nowhere in the motion is there any specific allegation as to how defendant's understanding or volition with respect to the plea was in fact deficient. In this regard, we note that an allegation that the court failed in certain respects to satisfy its Boykin duties is not equivalent to an allegation that in fact the defendant failed to appreciate the nature and consequences of his admission of guilt. In the absence of such specifics, placing the burden on the state to show that the plea was voluntary and understanding is tantamount to placing on the state the burden of proving the negative of the many ways in which the plea might be defective....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Arsenault
...with the accused to make sure he has a full understanding of what the plea connotes and of its consequences." State v. Desbiens, 117 N.H. 433, 435, 374 A.2d 651 (1977) (quotations and citation omitted). A trial court must be especially vigilant to ensure the knowing and voluntary nature of ......
-
State v. Harper
...at 1712. In the context of a collateral attack upon a prior conviction such as this, the State urges that we find State v. Desbiens, 117 N.H. 433, 374 A.2d 651 (1977), controlling. We held in that case that, in order to raise a successful collateral challenge to the validity of prior convic......
-
Halstead v. Murray
... ... has the potential of forcing clients to convey property based on agreements reached by their lawyers, my brothers comprising the majority state that clients may have recourse by suing their lawyers. This, I point out to them, is the same type of ... ...
-
State v. Kelly
...and until a defendant alleges the specific manner in which the plea was involuntary or made without understanding. State v. Desbiens, 117 N.H. 433, 374 A.2d 651 (1977). Second, the prerequisite for the admission of a prior conviction for impeachment purposes is proof that the prior convicti......