State v. Huntley
| Decision Date | 10 June 1974 |
| Citation | 322 A.2d 177,129 N.J.Super. 13 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Ronald HUNTLEY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Stanley C. Van Ness, Public Defender of N.J., for defendant-appellant (Steven Zamrin, Asst. Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).
William F. Hyland, Atty. Gen., for plaintiff-respondent (David S. Baime, Deputy Atty. Gen., of counsel).
Before Judges HALPERN, MATTHEWS and BISCHOFF.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
HALPERN, P.J.A.D.
This appeal poses the problem of whether the trial judge abused his discretion in not permitting defendant, prior to imposition of sentence, to withdraw his guilty pleas which were made pursuant to a plea bargain.
Defendant had been indicted for robbery (N.J.S.A. 2A:141--1) and was confined to the Camdem County Jail awaiting trial. While in jail he was indicted for committing sodomy (N.J.S.A. 2A:143--1) with a fellow inmate. On May 8, 1973 he retracted his not guilty pleas to the robbery and sodomy charges and, pursuant to a plea bargain submitted for approval to the trial judge, pled guilty to both charges. At the same time he also pled guilty to an accusation charging him with malicious destruction of property during a disturbance at the jail.
On June 19, 1973 defendant moved to withdraw the guilty pleas asserting that (a) he had mistakenly pled guilty, (b) he was innocent of the crimes charged, (c) he pled guilty because he was tired of being confined to jail, (d) he was improperly coerced by the leniency of the plea bargain to enter the guilty pleas, and (e) no factual basis was established for the guilty plea to the property damage accusation. The trial court placed no credence in these assertions and denied the motion.
The motion to withdraw the guilty pleas was renewed on the date of sentencing. An additional ground was then asserted that the alleged victim of the sodomy had certified in writing that defendant had not committed sodomy with him. This certification was in direct conflict with a previous version of the incident given by the victim. The trial judge found the certification to be unworthy of belief and denied the motion. He sentenced defendant on the robbery and sodomy charges, in accordance with the plea bargain, to concurrent 4--6-year terms in State Prison. Defendant's motion to withdraw the guilty plea to the property damage accusation was granted, and the accusation was dismissed. This appeal followed.
We are committed to the principle that a guilty plea voluntarily entered may not be withdrawn except pursuant to leave granted in the exercise of the trial judge's discretion.
* * * However, where before sentence the defendant asserts his innocence and seeks to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial, the courts in our State, in practice, generally exercise their discretion liberally to enable withdrawal of the plea and a trial on the merits; * * *. (State v. Deutsch, 34 N.J. 190, 198, 168 A.2d 12, 16 (1961).)
We should note that in Deutsch a plea bargain was not involved, and the matter was remanded to the trial judge to supplement the inadequate record which prevented the Supreme Court from determining whether the trial judge abused his discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. Thus, it is clear that the burden rests on defendant, in the first instance, to present some plausible basis for his request, and his good faith in asserting a defense on the merits, so the trial judge is able to determine whether fundamental fairness requires a granting of the motion. Any other approach would automatically require a trial judge to grant such motions, and strip him of any discretion in the matter. Liberality in exercising discretion does not mean an abdication of all discretion.
The record is abundantly clear that when defendant's guilty pleas were entered the trial judge carefully and fully complied with the mandates of R. 3:9--2. After defense counsel had assured the trial judge that defendant's guilty pleas were made voluntarily and knowingly after full consultation with him, the trial judge personally inquired of defendant as to the voluntariness of his execution of Form 13A. When questioned by the trial judge, defendant related in full and vivid terms how and why the robbery in question had been committed. Defendant readily admitted his act of sodomy as described to him by the trial judge. 1 The trial judge advised defendant of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gonzalez
...should not generally be vacated in the absence of some plausible showing of a valid defense against the charges. State v. Huntley, 129 N.J.Super. 13, 17, 322 A.2d 177 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 66 N.J. 312, 331 A.2d 12 (1974). This principle has particular efficacy where the plea has been ......
-
State v. Taylor
...should not be entitled to withdraw his plea as a matter of whimsy or merely because he changed his mind. State v. Huntley, 129 N.J.Super. 13, 18, 322 A.2d 177 (App.Div.), certif. den. 66 N.J. 312, 331 A.2d (1974). Where there is not a significant possibility of harm to the defendant from so......
-
Commonwealth v. Carrasquillo
...1305, 1309 (1990) (“Liberality in exercising discretion does not mean an abdication of all discretion.” (quoting State v. Huntley, 129 N.J.Super. 13, 322 A.2d 177, 179 (1974) )). In the Commonwealth's view, the courts of common pleas should be afforded latitude to evaluate the sincerity and......
-
State v. Samuels
...will not be allowed to withdraw the plea on a "whimsical change of mind by defendant or the prosecutor." State v. Huntley, 129 N.J.Super. 13, 18, 322 A.2d 177 (App.Div.1974), cert. denied, 66 N.J. 312, 331 A.2d 12. Nor will a "belated assertion of innocence upset an otherwise validly entere......