Walford v. State

• Docket Number: A23-0709
• Decision Date: 08 April 2024
• Parties: Omar Kwabena Walford, petitioner, Appellant, v. State of Minnesota, Respondent.
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

1

Omar Kwabena Walford, petitioner, Appellant, v. State of Minnesota, Respondent.

No. A23-0709

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

April 8, 2024

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

Ramsey County District Court FileNo. 62-CR-16-5993

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Michael McLaughlin, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

John J. Choi, Ramsey County Attorney, Alexandra Meyer, Assistant County Attorney, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Johnson, Presiding Judge; Segal Chief Judge; and Cochran, Judge.

OPINION

COCHRAN, JUDGE

In this appeal from the postconviction court's denial of postconviction relief, appellant argues that (1) his guilty pleas were unintelligent due to the affirmative misadvice of advisory counsel, (2)he was denied the effective assistance of advisory counsel, and (3) his guilty pleas were invalid due to violations of due process in the evaluation of his competency to proceed.Because appellant's guilty pleas were not intelligently entered, we reverse and remand to allow appellant to withdraw his guilty pleas.

FACTS

On August 18, 2016, respondentState of Minnesota charged appellantOmar Kwabena Walford with terroristic threats in violation of Minnesota Statutes section 609.713, subdivision 1(2016), and domestic abuse in violation of Minnesota Statutes section 518B.01, subdivision 14(a)(2016), based on allegations that Walford threatened his estranged wife while speaking with her over the phone and in person.

Walford was initially represented by a public defender but later requested to represent himself.The district court granted Walford's request to represent himself and discharged his public defender.At a subsequent hearing, Walford affirmed his waiver of counsel and declined advisory counsel.The district court, however, appointed advisory counsel sua sponte under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.04 subdivision 2, "because of concerns about fairness of the process."The district court also affirmed that Walford "retain[ed] the right to decide when and how to use advisory counsel."

Pretrial Proceedings and First Competency Evaluation

At a pretrial hearing in June 2017, Walford told the district court that he had "persistent and severe mental illnesses"; struggled with attention-deficit disorder and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder; and was forced to represent himself "when [he] probably should not be."

The district court ordered a competency evaluation under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.01 to determine whether Walford was competent to proceed.The competency evaluation concluded that Walford had several mental-health disorders but nevertheless opined that Walford was competent to proceed because he understood the charges against him, was able to discuss his version of events in a logical manner, and had a rational trial strategy.The evaluation was submitted to the district court and received by the prosecutor.

At a September 8, 2017 hearing,^[1]the district court asked the parties if they had any additions or corrections to the competency evaluation.The state declined, but Walford objected to the evaluation, explaining he"had two prior evaluations" that "were totally different than this one."Walford did not submit his objection in writing or request a contested competency hearing.The district court noted Walford's objection, adopted the evaluation, and found that Walford was competent to proceed.

The trial was delayed, however, until February 2020, after the district court ordered several continuances in response to Walford's complaints that the state was not responding to his discovery requests.During his many pretrial hearings, Walford repeatedly expressed his desire to preserve his right to appeal.

Shortly before trial, the district court relieved advisory counsel of his duties because Walford "[did not] talk to him" and "[did not] want to talk to him."The district court indicated that it would appoint different advisory counsel at trial because Walford did not understand the court rules.

Trial and Second Competency Evaluation

During jury selection, Walford stated that he was "done" and refused to proceed.After a prolonged exchange with the district court, the district court suspended proceedings and ordered another rule 20.01 competency evaluation.The district court explained that it was "concerned about [Walford's] competency" based on his statements and behavior.The district court also appointed advisory counsel under rule 5.04, subdivision 2, based on its concerns about "[d]elays in completing the trial, the potential for disruption by the defendant, or the complexity or length of trial."

Walford's 2020 competency evaluation similarly concluded that Walford suffered from several mental-health disorders but nevertheless opined that Walford was competent to proceed.Because Walford refused to participate in the evaluation, the evaluator relied on other documentation related to Walford's competence, including two rule 20.01 evaluations; one psychological evaluation; incident, discipline, and mental-health reports from various correctional facilities where Walford had been incarcerated; presentence investigation reports; and various other documents.Based on his review, the evaluator concluded that Walford's mental health and cognitive ability remained unchanged from his prior competency evaluations and determined that Walford was competent to proceed.

On May 20, 2020, the district court issued an order adopting the 2020 competency evaluation and found Walford competent to proceed.Neither party objected to the competency finding or requested a contested competency hearing.

Alford Pleas and Sentencing

Shortly after the 2020 competency evaluation, Walford entered an Alford plea to both charges.^[2] At the plea hearing, advisory counsel informed the district court that the parties had been negotiating a plea deal and, earlier in the day, Walford authorized advisory counsel to present the state with a counteroffer to the state's last offer.The counteroffer "call[ed] for an Alford plea to both counts" with time running concurrently to time that he was already serving in prison.The state accepted the offer, and Walford told the court that he wished to plead guilty by an Alford plea.

Advisory counsel then reviewed the plea agreement with Walford on the record before the district court.Advisory counsel confirmed Walford's understanding of an Alford plea, including that Walford would be "giving up certain constitutional rights" even though he was maintaining his innocence.Advisory counsel then explained an additional term of Walford's counteroffer:

ADVISORY COUNSEL: Mr. Walford, when you authorized me to present a counter-offer to the state there are two additional things that we talked about, right?One, that you wanted to reserve your ability to appeal decisions or things that had happened prior to today; is that correct?

WALFORD: Correct.

ADVISORY COUNSEL: And I told you that both the judge and [the prosecutor] from the state, that it's neither of their intentions to prohibit that; is that correct?

WALFORD: Yes, ma'am.

ADVISORY COUNSEL: And you talked to me about what is called a Lothenbach plea; is that right?

WALFORD: Yes.

ADVISORY COUNSEL: And I told you in this particular case that that wasn't the appropriate kind of a thing because there wasn't one particular what I call dispositive issue; is that right?

WALFORD: Yes, ma'am.

ADVISORY COUNSEL: And I explained to you what dispositive meant?

WALFORD: Yes, ma'am.

ADVISORY COUNSEL: And you agree with me that based on that, that the Lothenbach wasn't the way to go; is that right?

WALFORD: Yes, ma'am.

(Emphasis added.)Neither the state nor the district court objected to these terms.

The district court accepted Walford's guilty plea to each of the two charges and sentenced him to 39 months in prison for each count, to be served concurrently with the sentence he was already serving.Walford did not directly appeal his convictions.

Petition for Postconviction Relief

On August 23, 2022, Walford filed a petition for postconviction relief seeking to withdraw his guilty pleas.In the petition Walford argued that: (1) his convictions violated due process because he was not competent to plead guilty; (2) his guilty pleas were unintelligent and therefore invalid because he did not understand that he was waiving his right to appeal pretrial issues by pleading guilty, due to misadvice by advisory counsel; (3) his guilty plea for terroristic threats was invalid because it did not address an essential element of the offense.

The postconviction court held an evidentiary hearing on the petition.Walford testified, in relevant part, that he entered his Alford pleas with the intention of preserving his right to appeal pretrial issues, including issues related to his right to a speedy trial and alleged discovery violations.Walford also testified that he understood that he would be able to appeal those issues based on the advice of his advisory counsel.When asked whether he recalled any discussion of a "stipulated-facts trial or a stipulated-evidence trial as an alternative to preserve [his] pretrial issues for appeal," Walford stated: "I don't remember anything like that."Walford testified that, if he had known that he would lose his right to appeal pretrial issues by entering Alford pleas, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have instead proceeded to trial.

On March 16, 2023, the postconviction court denied Walford's petition for postconviction relief.The...