State v. Dufresne, 80-455-C

• Decision Date: 28 October 1981
• Docket Number: No. 80-455-C,80-455-C
• Parties: STATE v. Alfred DUFRESNE. A.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

Page 720

436 A.2d 720

STATE v. Alfred DUFRESNE.

No. 80-455-C.A.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Oct. 28, 1981.

Dennis J. Roberts, II, Atty. Gen., Alyssa L. Talanker, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff.

John F. Cicilline, Providence, for defendant.

OPINION

SHEA, Justice.

The defendant, Alfred A. Dufresne, was granted a new trial by a justice of the Superior Court. The justice so ruled after a hearing on the defendant's petition for postconviction relief pursuant to G.L.1956 (1969 Reenactment) §§ 10-9.1-1-10-9.1-9, as enacted by P.L.1974, ch. 220, § 3. The defendant had been tried for the murder of his wife; and at the close of the state's case, he terminated the trial, pleaded guilty to the charge of murder in the second degree and received a sentence of forty years at the Adult Correctional Institutions with fifteen years suspended. The defendant alleged, and the Superior Court justice found, that he had been denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel. The state appeals from the decision granting a new trial. We reverse.

The defendant was indicted on November 19, 1976, for murder in the first degree, ¹ for committing a violent crime with a firearm, ² and for altering the serial numbers of the alleged murder weapon. ³

The state's evidence at trial established that defendant and his wife had long maintained a stormy relationship. At the time of the shooting they were involved in divorce proceedings. On the night of November 5-6, 1976, while in possession of a gun, defendant broke into the victim's apartment. She was not home at the time. He waited for some time until she returned at around 8 a. m., after an all-night date. ⁴ When she arrived home, they argued for some time. Mrs. Dufresne threatened to call the police. The defendant then drew the weapon and shot her three times: he shot her first in the face, then in her left side, and finally, as she lay on the floor, he shot her in the back of the head.

The defendant then left the apartment and went to a nearby bar. He told the bartender Thomas P. Hathaway that he had shot and killed his wife. Hathaway testified that he served Dufresne two double shots of whiskey and two sixteen-ounce mugs of beer. He described defendant as a heavy and habitual drinker, who appeared to be nervous and to have already had something to drink. Police did find an open bottle of liquor at the victim's apartment. The defendant then turned himself in to the police to whom he gave statements in which he admitted having committed the crime.

On April 12, 1977, defendant entered a plea of guilty to second-degree murder. His trial counsel had met with the state's attorney at the close of the state's case on the previous day and had consulted with defendant himself.

At the time the plea was entered, the trial justice questioned defendant, as is customary, to determine whether his plea was knowingly and voluntarily given. He informed defendant that as a result of the plea he was henceforward not entitled to a jury trial, or to the presumption of innocence, or to the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses and to present a defense, and that he was giving up his right to an appeal. The defendant stated that he understood each of these points. The trial justice also examined Dufresne regarding his commission of the murder. Specifically, defendant admitted committing the act and he admitted having had the intent to do so. The trial justice also informed defendant of the range of possible sentences which could be imposed. The trial justice then accepted defendant's plea of guilty, and expressly found it to be knowingly and voluntarily entered. His examination of Dufresne comported with established constitutional practice. Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637, 96 S.Ct. 2253, 49 L.Ed.2d 108 (1976); Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969); see LaRoche v. Langlois, 102 R.I. 582, 232 A.2d 365 (1967).

At the postconviction hearing, which was held at various times between September 1979 and January 1980, Dufresne claimed that his trial counsel failed to employ helpful evidence or to interview witnesses for his defense, made no pretrial motions, and generally failed to fully investigate the case. The defendant's trial counsel testified that he had made certain choices in determining the nature and conduct of Dufresne's defense. He stated that relying on his view of the case, he had specifically considered and rejected defense theories related to intoxication and self-defense.

The pertinent findings of the postconviction justice were that defendant's attorney filed no pretrial motions, did not interview all available witnesses, failed to investigate properly the facts concerning defendant's possible intoxication and its bearing on the voluntariness of statements he made to the police or as it related to a substantive defense to the charge of murder, failed to confer frequently enough with his client, did not disclose to defendant the name of the individual last seen with the victim, neglected to interview that person whose testimony would have been essential to the defense in impeaching the victim's character, failed to request or review notes of defendant's confession, and failed to visit the crime scene.

The postconviction hearing justice concluded that defendant was sufficiently prejudiced by the quality of his attorney's representation to warrant vacation of defendant's plea and sentence. It was his opinion that a different handling of the case might have produced a different result. In the decision he discussed evidence that he believed could have established mitigating circumstances or affirmative defenses. The hearing justice also said that the issue of intoxication had possible use both procedurally and substantively. None of these matters to which the postconviction hearing justice attached significance were presented at trial.

The findings of the hearing justice are entitled to stand undisturbed on review in the absence of clear error or a showing that material evidence was overlooked or misconceived by the hearing justice. State v. Duggan, R.I., 414 A.2d 788 (1980); Palmigiano v. Mullen, R.I., 377 A.2d 242 (1977). After careful review of both the trial record and the postconviction record, we are compelled to conclude that the postconviction justice was in error when he vacated the plea.

The defendant's entry of the guilty plea to second-degree murder interrupted and halted the trial. That plea, therefore, fixed the posture of any further proceedings for postconviction relief. The only pertinent issue before the court, and the only issue that should have had any relevance at the postconviction hearing in the court below, was whether defendant's guilty plea was valid. The sole question was whether Dufresne knowingly and voluntarily entered his plea. Our consideration of that plea, therefore, makes discussion of the trial counsel's activities that were not related to the taking of the plea wholly irrelevant. Defendant's allegation that he was denied constitutionally effective assistance of counsel throughout the entire proceedings does not change the essential nature of our inquiry.

The focus of a postconviction inquiry when there has been a guilty plea is the nature of counsel's advice concerning the plea and the voluntariness of the plea. If the plea is validly entered, we do not consider any alleged prior constitutional infirmity. Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973).

"(A) guilty plea represents a break in the chain of events which has preceded it in the criminal process. When a criminal defendant has solemnly admitted in open court that he is in fact guilty of the offense with which he is charged, he may not thereafter raise independent claims relating to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea. He may only attack the voluntary and intelligent character of the guilty plea by showing that the advice he received from counsel was not within the standards set forth in McMann (v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 770, 90 S.Ct. 1441, 1448, 25 L.Ed.2d 763, 773 (1970))." Id. at 267, 93 S.Ct. at 1608, 36 L.Ed.2d at 243.

Compare LaRoche v. Langlois, supra (alleged confusion in the defendant's mind on the day prior to his plea deemed irrelevant to issue of his full cognizance and voluntariness on the day he pleaded).

A defendant who pleads guilty on the...