State v. Willis
| Decision Date | 11 June 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 53199,53199 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. John WILLIS. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Murphy Bell, Warren J. Hebert, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., LeRoy A. Hartley, Special Asst, Atty. Gen., Ossie Brown, Dist. Atty., Nathan E. Wilson, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
John Willis was charged in a bill of information with armed robbery. On May 29, 1970, he waived formal arraignment and pleaded 'Not Guilty'. On May 17, 1972, defendant (appellant) withdrew his plea of 'Not Guilty' and substituted a plea of 'Guilty' to the charge of armed robbery. On September 8, 1972, after a presentence investigation was conducted, defendant was sentenced to serve ten (10) years in the state penitentiary without benefit of probation, parole or suspension of sentence.
On January 9, 1973, defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. After a contradictory hearing, the motion was denied on January 23, 1973 and defendant reserved a bill of exceptions to the denial thereof. He appeals his conviction and sentence.
Defendant's sole contention on this appeal is stated in his brief as follows:
'Appellant contends that his guilty plea was the result of improper assurances from his attorney that he would 'most likely' get the minimum sentence, and that appellant's resistance had been worn down by the two year delay between the filing of the charges and trial.'
Defense counsel cites United States v. Frontero. 452 F.2d 406 (5th Cir., 1971) for the proposition that implications by defense counsel that defendant would get a minimum sentence for pleading guilty operated to produce a misunderstanding in appellant's mind which this Court should hold invalidates his plea of guilty.
That case does not support the defendant's assertions. Frontero involved a meeting between defense counsel, the United States attorney, and the trial judge to discuss the defendant's case. The defendant alleged that his counsel understood the trial judge to indicate that if the defendant had no prior criminal record, he would receive a suspended sentence and be placed on probation, in return for a plea of guilty. Defendant further alleged that his counsel passed this information along to him, and he then withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty. The presentence investigation confirmed that the defendant had no prior criminal record, but the defendant was sentenced to three years' imprisonment. On appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal, the court refused to set aside defendant's plea on the ground, 'all that this record contains to support (defendant's) claims of a 'deal' are conclusory statements by the defendant.'
In the case at bar, the record reveals that the defendant was never told by defense counsel that a 'deal' had been made concerning the sentence to be imposed. As in the Frontero case, the defendant's conclusory assertions are the only evidence in this record regarding the 'possibility' of his receiving a five year sentence. At the hearing on the motion to withdraw the guilty plea the defendant alleged that he pleaded guilty for two reasons.
Primarily, the defendant alleged that his counsel had advised him by letter that if he pleaded guilty he would 'most likely' receive the minimum sentence of five years for the charge of armed robbery. This advice, he alleges, persuaded him to enter the guilty plea.
The letters from defense counsel were introduced into evidence at the hearing. We note that in only two of these letters is there any reference to the defendant's sentence They were written on June 2, 1972 and July 18, 1972 some length of time After the defendant pleaded guilty on May 17, and, therefore, could not have had any effect on defendant's decision to plead guilty.
The only other relevant correspondence between defense counsel and the defendant prior to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Clark v. Marullo
...corpus. See also State ex rel. Hebert v. Henderson, 290 So.2d 832 (La.1974); State v. Ballard, 282 So.2d 448 (La.1973); State v. Willis, 279 So.2d 192 (La.1973). The curious situation created by the strict enforcement of C.Cr.P. 559 is that while a trial judge does not have jurisdiction to ......
-
State v. DeManuel
...art. 559. Cases in this Court have sustained the rule. State ex rel. Hebert v. Henderson and State v. Ballard, supra; State v. Willis, 279 So.2d 192 (La.1973). Review of illegal sentences must be upon the application of defendant or of the State by appeal or writs of certiorari and prohibit......