State v. Enoch

• Decision Date: 13 December 1994
• Docket Number: No. 93-437,93-437
• Citation: 887 P.2d 175,269 Mont. 8
• Parties: STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Ben Daniel ENOCH, Jr., Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

Page 175

887 P.2d 175

269 Mont. 8

STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Ben Daniel ENOCH, Jr., Defendant and Appellant.

No. 93-437.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs Sept. 22, 1994.

Decided Dec. 13, 1994.

Anne H. Watson, Herman A. Watson III, Watson & Watson, Bozeman, for appellant.

Joseph P. Mazurek, Atty. Gen., Jennifer Anders, Asst. Atty. Gen., Helena, Betty Wing, Deputy County Atty., Missoula, for respondent.

GRAY, Justice.

Ben Daniel Enoch (Enoch) appeals from the judgment entered by the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, on his Alford plea to the felony offense of issuing bad checks. We reverse, concluding that the District Court abused its discretion in denying Enoch's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

On October 23, 1992, Enoch was charged with a felony violation of § 45-6-316, MCA, issuing a bad check (common scheme). He entered a plea of not guilty on November 18, 1992. Enoch's next appearance before the District Court was on May 10, 1993, for a change of plea. At that time, Enoch's counsel advised the court:

Your Honor, I have spoken to my client, and I am not sure if he wants to change his plea. I told him it was his decision. For the record, there is no plea bargain. Ms. Wing told me she would recommend a ten-year sentence, and I told my client, with that in mind, we could plead this straight up and argue the sentence he wants, and he expressed some reservations this morning about doing that, so we need to get information from him about what he wants to do.

The District Court asked Enoch whether he wanted to go to trial; Enoch replied that he did. The court then recessed, with the intent of reconvening fifteen minutes later to schedule a trial date.

When the court reconvened, Enoch's counsel advised that Enoch wanted to withdraw his not guilty plea and enter an Alford plea of guilty. No written waiver of rights was prepared or executed and no negotiated plea bargain agreement was made. After a short interrogation, the District Court accepted Enoch's Alford plea and ordered a presentence report.

Enoch appeared before the District Court on June 28, 1993, for sentencing. Prior to sentencing, he orally requested to withdraw his guilty plea. The District Court denied Enoch's motion, adjudged him guilty of the offense charged, and sentenced him to ten years imprisonment in the Montana State Prison.

Enoch raises five issues on appeal. The dispositive issue is whether the District Court erred in denying Enoch's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Because we reverse on that issue, we need not address the other issues raised on appeal.

The principles governing the entry and withdrawal of guilty pleas are contained in both statute and case law. See State v. Radi (1991), 250 Mont. 155, 818 P.2d 1203. Trial courts must meet statutory requirements such as those contained in §§ 46-12-210 and 46-16-105(1), MCA (1991), before accepting a guilty plea. Section 46-16-105(2), MCA, relates to withdrawal of a guilty plea.

No set rule or standard exists under which a trial court addresses a request to withdraw a guilty plea; each case must be considered in light of its unique record. Radi, 818 P.2d at 1206. Our standard in reviewing a district court's denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is whether the court abused its discretion. State v. Reynolds (1992), 253 Mont. 386, 390, 833 P.2d 153, 155.

Three factors must be balanced when considering a criminal defendant's attempt to withdraw a guilty plea: (1) the adequacy of the court's interrogation at the time the plea was entered regarding the defendant's understanding of the consequences of the plea; (2) the promptness with which the defendant attempts to withdraw the plea; and (3) the fact that the plea was the result of a plea bargain in which the guilty plea was given in exchange for dismissal of another charge. Radi, 818 P.2d at 1206 (citation omitted); State v. Koepplin (1984), 213 Mont. 55, 59-60, 689 P.2d 921, 923. Because it is undisputed that Enoch's guilty plea was not the result of a plea bargain, the third factor weighs in favor of allowing withdrawal of the plea.

With regard to the promptness factor, it has long been the rule that a request to withdraw a guilty plea should be made within a reasonable time. State v. Nance (1947), 120 Mont. 152, 165, 184 P.2d 554, 561. Because each case presents its own unique factual circumstances, we have declined to adopt specific parameters defining the timeliness of a motion to withdraw. In State v. Laverdure (1984), 212 Mont. 31, 35, 685 P.2d 375, 377, we concluded that a ten-month delay between the guilty plea and motion to withdraw was relatively prompt; in State v. La Tray (1986), 220 Mont. 358, 363, 715 P.2d 52, 55, a fourteen-month delay was not timely.

Here, Enoch pled guilty on May 10, 1993. Shortly thereafter, during an interview with probation department personnel preparing the presentence report, Enoch stated that he wanted to withdraw his plea. He reiterated that request during his next appearance before the District Court on June 28, 1993, one and one-half months after the entry of his guilty plea and prior to sentencing.

The State of Montana (State) suggests, without citation to authority, that we should consider Enoch's indecision about whether to plead guilty or not guilty over the eight-month period between the filing of the information and the motion to withdraw the guilty plea in determining whether Enoch's request to withdraw the plea was timely. Such an approach would radically alter the promptness factor from one examining time between entry of a guilty plea and a motion to withdraw that plea to one considering time between the filing of the charge and efforts to withdraw a guilty plea entered sometime thereafter. Such an approach also would permit us to hold a criminal defendant accountable for all time after filing of the charges in determining whether a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is timely. Neither our cases nor the fundamental concepts underlying the promptness factor support the State's position. See State v. Mahoney (1994), 264 Mont. 89, 870 P.2d 65, 68-69; Reynolds, 833 P.2d at 156. We conclude that Enoch's request to withdraw his guilty plea, which followed the entry of the plea by less than two months, was made within a reasonable time. Thus, the promptness factor also weighs in favor of allowing the withdrawal of Enoch's plea.

The final factor we consider is the adequacy of the District Court's interrogation at the time the guilty plea was entered. Enoch argues that the court's interrogation was inadequate and, as a result, that his plea was neither knowing nor voluntary.

We have determined that a court's interrogation on a change of plea is adequate where the court:

examines the defendant, finds him to be competent, and determines from him that his plea of guilty is voluntary, he understands the charge and his possible punishment, he is not acting under the influence of drugs or alcohol, he admits his counsel is competent and he has been well advised, and he declares in open court the fact upon which his guilt is based.

Mahoney, 870 P.2d at 68 (citations omitted). In addition, it is well-settled that a guilty plea must be a knowing and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant. Radi, 818 P.2d at 1206; quoting North Carolina v. Alford (1970), 400 U.S. 25, 32, 91 S.Ct. 160, 164, 27 L.Ed.2d 162, 168.

In this case, the following colloquy took place between the District Court and Enoch at the time Enoch entered his guilty plea:

THE COURT: Mr. Enoch, I would like to explain a few things to you. First of all, by withdrawing your plea of not guilty and entering a plea of guilty, you're giving up virtually all of your rights except the right to be represented by an attorney. You lose the possibility of being found not guilty or being found guilty of a lesser included offense. You lose the right to confront witnesses that would be called to testify against you in a trial. You lose the right to subpoena witnesses to testify on your behalf, and you lose the right to a jury trial. Do you understand that?

MR. ENOCH: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: It is still your desire to withdraw your plea of not guilty?

MR. ENOCH: (No verbal response.)

MR. BECCARI: Do you still want to plead guilty?

(Whereupon, Mr. Beccari had a discussion with his client off the record.)

MR. BECCARI: Your Honor, he is going to enter an Alford plea.

MR. ENOCH: Yes sir.

THE COURT: Your not guilty plea is ordered withdrawn. Are you under the influence of any alcohol, medication, or other substance that would affect your reasoning powers?

MR. ENOCH: Medication.

THE COURT: Would that affect your reasoning powers?

MR. ENOCH: I wouldn't think so.

THE COURT: Are you satisfied with the services of your attorney?

MR. ENOCH: Yes.

THE COURT: It is my understanding that on the plea of guilty, the State is going to recommend ten years in prison, and the defense is going to be able to argue for whatever sentence they want.

MS. WING: That's correct.

THE COURT: Other than this understanding, have any promises or threats been made to you to induce you to enter a guilty plea?

MR. ENOCH: Not overtly, no.

THE COURT: In any way?

MR. ENOCH: Well, just the fact that you face a lot more severe sentence by risking going to court. That is the only thing.

THE COURT: So just the sentencing factor is the only thing that has entered into the discussions with you, correct?

MR. ENOCH: Yes.

THE COURT: The Information alleges--the plea of not guilty is ordered withdrawn. Do you have a copy of the information?

MR. ENOCH: No--yes, I do--not with me.

THE COURT: The Information alleges that you committed the offense of issuing bad checks, a felony. That carries a penalty of up to ten years in the Montana State Prison and/or a fifty-thousand dollar fine. The allegation is that on or about and between June 12 through June 27, 1992, you issued or delivered three or...