Waldon v. State, 7 Div. 799
Decision Date | 03 February 1981 |
Docket Number | 7 Div. 799 |
Parties | Mary Ann WALDON v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Robert G. Wilson of Scruggs, Rains & Wilson, Fort Payne, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen. and William Dudley Motlow, Asst. Atty. Gen., Montgomery, for appellee.
The defendant pled guilty to two indictments charging grand larceny. Each indictment involved a case of shoplifting; one from the Athens Outlet Company, the other from Kuhn's Big K. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial judge sentenced the defendant to four years' imprisonment on each indictment, the sentences to run concurrently.
On appeal, the defendant contends that her conviction should be reversed because (1) there was no colloquy to determine the voluntariness of the guilty plea, (2) there was no showing that the elements of the charged offenses had been explained, (3) there was no showing that she was informed that in a prosecution for grand larceny she could be convicted for petit larceny, and (4) the trial court failed to advise her that the State had to prove her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of all twelve jurors.
The defendant entered her pleas of guilty to both indictments after her trial had begun and four witnesses for the State had testified in the case involving the grand larceny from Athens Outlet Company.
The defendant's first contention is refuted by the record which affirmatively reveals that the trial judge informed the defendant of the constitutional rights she would waive by pleading guilty: The privilege against compulsory self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, the right to trial by jury and the right to confront one's accusers. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). In addition the Judge informed the defendant of the maximum and minimum range of punishment. From the record:
In support of her second contention, the defendant relies upon Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637, 96 S.Ct. 2253, 49 L.Ed.2d 108 (1976). The specific question there was "whether a defendant may enter a voluntary plea of guilty to a charge of second degree murder without being informed that intent to cause the death of the victim was an element of the offense." 96 S.Ct. at 2254. Based on the general proposition that a guilty plea is involuntary if the accused "has such an incomplete understanding of the charge that his plea cannot stand as an intelligent admission of guilt", 96 S.Ct. at 2257, n. 13, the majority concluded that, in the particular situation before it, the circumstances surrounding the accused's plea failed to satisfy its test for voluntariness for the following reasons: (1) Neither defense counsel nor the trial court informed the accused that intent to kill was an element of the crime of second degree murder; (2) defense counsel did not stipulate to the existence of such intent; and (3) the accused made no factual statements to the court implying that he had such intent. 5 Amer.J.Crim.Law 105 (1977).
In Henderson, it was specifically noted that:
96 S.Ct. at 2258, no. 18. (emphasis added)
The Court also noted that 96 S.Ct. at 2258.
As was recognized in McGuirk v. Fair, 622 F.2d 597, 598 (1st Cir. 1980), "(t) he holding of Henderson...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jones v. State
...where it failed to include, as an essential element of the crime, a specific allegation of criminal intent. See also Waldon v. State, 394 So.2d 100 (Ala.Crim.App.1981). The Official Comment to Arkansas' consolidated statute notes that an indictment or information need only charge the defend......
-
Pierce v. State
...is required." Id. at 647 n. 18, 96 S.Ct. at 2258 n. 18. Admittedly, the circumstances of Henderson are unique. Waldon v. State, 394 So.2d 100, 103 (Ala.Cr.App.1981). In acknowledging that the totality of the circumstances should be considered in determining whether the substance of the char......
-
Morrow v. State, 8 Div. 655
...of her contention, appellant relies upon Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637, 96 S.Ct. 2253, 49 L.Ed.2d 108 (1976). In Waldon v. State, 394 So.2d 100 (Ala.Crim.App.1981), this court, at pages 102-03 discussed "The specific question ... [in Henderson ] was 'whether a defendant may enter a volu......
-
Spears v. State
...ability to intelligently comprehend the nature of the charge against him. As this court has previously pointed out in Waldon v. State, 394 So.2d 100 (Ala.Cr.App.1981), the Henderson holding was very narrow. At any rate, the facts in Henderson are readily distinguishable from the facts of th......