Wallace v. Turner
| Decision Date | 14 January 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-6225,81-6225 |
| Citation | 695 F.2d 545 |
| Parties | Abraham WALLACE, Petitioner-Appellee, v. R.V. TURNER, Superintendent, Glades Correction Institute, and the Attorney General of Florida, Respondents-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Steven R. Jacob, Asst. Atty. Gen., Florida Regional Service Center, Miami, Fla., for respondents-appellants.
Harvey S. Swickle, North Miami Beach, Fla., for Wallace.
Appeal from the United States District Court Southern District of Florida.
Before RONEY, TJOFLAT and FAY, Circuit Judges.
The district court granted habeas corpus relief to Abraham Wallace on the ground that a state trial court violated his constitutional right to due process by accepting a plea of nolo contendere to a charge of second degree murder on proffered evidence that the state court thought would support only a manslaughter conviction. Wallace v. Turner, 525 F.Supp. 1072 (S.D.Fla.1981). We reverse, holding that a state court judge does not violate a defendant's constitutional rights by accepting a knowing and voluntary nolo contendere plea without a factual basis for the plea. We note that a nolo contendere plea is treated the same as a guilty plea and is governed by the same constitutional considerations.
A detailed explanation of the state court plea proceedings is necessary to an understanding of why the alleged procedural default does not amount to a violation of the federal Constitution.
The State charged Wallace by information with one count of aggravated battery and one count of second degree murder for the death of his two and one-half-year-old stepdaughter. At the plea hearing in state court, Wallace's attorney stipulated that the information constituted a prima facie case on both counts but asked the court to rule on whether the proffered facts constituted the crime of second degree murder. At that point, the following colloquy took place:
The court then questioned Wallace under oath about his ability to understand the proceedings and his desire to plead no contest to the two charges. This exchange followed:
MR. ALTER [Wallace's attorney]: Your Honor, we will be pleading no contest to manslaughter. I recognize that the penalty which is to be imposed by the Court is lawful, however I prefer if we can sentence Mr. Wallace on the charge which he is guilty of.
I will tell you that my offer is based on the plea of the charge; you can take it or leave it. I am not going to reduce the charges at this time.
In response to the court's questions Wallace indicated he understood that if the court accepted the nolo contendere plea it would adjudicate him guilty and sentence him to 15 years. He also stated that (1) no one had forced him to change the plea from not guilty to no contest, (2) no physical or emotional problems prevented him from understanding what was happening; (3) he understood what was happening, and (4) he was satisfied with his appointed attorney. Finally, Wallace responded affirmatively when the court asked him if he understood that by entering the plea he was giving up his rights to a jury trial, to present and confront witnesses, and to testify in his own behalf. The court accepted Wallace's plea of no contest, adjudicated him guilty on both counts as charged, and sentenced him to 15 years on both counts to run concurrently. Such a sentence would have been within statutory limits for manslaughter.
Wallace's pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court asserted that the trial court erred by adjudicating him guilty of second degree murder while expressing doubts about the factual basis supporting the plea. He argues that he was denied due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, alleging that the court violated Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.172(a), which requires state trial judges to establish a factual basis for a plea. 1 This violation prejudices him because the State Parole Commission established his parole eligibility date based on the second degree murder conviction, resulting in a longer period of confinement prior to possible parole than if his conviction was for manslaughter. In other words, the time for eligibility for parole is longer for a second degree murder conviction than for a manslaughter conviction, even though the sentence received for each conviction might be the same.
The district court found that Wallace entered the plea voluntarily, fully aware of his situation, and noted the stipulation by Wallace's attorney that the information constituted a prima facie case on both counts. The court observed that Wallace's petition apparently did not contest the voluntariness of the plea, focusing instead on the alleged prejudice due to the additional period of confinement before he becomes eligible for parole.
The court acknowledged that there is no federal constitutional right to parole and that habeas corpus relief is not available merely because a petitioner's stay in prison exceeds the amount of time envisioned by the sentencing court. Nonetheless, the court concluded that the Florida Parole Commission's use of the second degree murder conviction to determine Wallace's parole eligibility violated his due process right to a proper consideration for parole. The court reasoned that a judgment of guilt must conform to the offense for which the plea is proffered. In its view, Wallace pleaded guilty to one offense but was adjudicated guilty of another.
The court ordered the state either to modify the judgment to conform to the trial court's proper finding and sentencing of Wallace as guilty of manslaughter or to vacate the judgment as to the second degree murder count and permit Wallace to enter a new plea.
A state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus must establish he is "in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 2254(a). Although we assume for purposes of this decision that the state trial judge violated Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.172(a), as Wallace contends, we note that the state appellate court detected no error in the plea proceedings. Given its summary disposition, however, we do not know the basis for its conclusion. Wallace v. State, 389 So.2d 10 (Fla. 3d Dist.Ct.App.1980).
The fundamental constitutional consideration when a petitioner challenges his plea is whether it was voluntary. The rule is the same for pleas of guilty or nolo contendere. North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37, 91 S.Ct. 160, 167, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970). See DeGaglia v. Stack, 490 F.2d 472 (5th Cir.1974). Only when a defendant proclaims his innocence while pleading guilty have federal courts required a judicial finding of some factual basis for the plea as an essential part of the constitutionally required finding that the plea was voluntary. North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. at 38 n. 10, 91 S.Ct. at 167 n. 10; Willett v. Georgia, 608 F.2d 538, 540 (5th Cir.1979); United States ex rel. Dunn v. Casscles, 494 F.2d 397 (2d Cir.1974). Even in these cases, the purpose of placing the facts on the record is not to establish guilt as a basis for a judgment of conviction. Rather it is to aid in the constitutionally required determination that the defendant entered the plea intelligently and voluntarily. Willett v. Georgia, 608 F.2d at 540. See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. at 37-38, 91 S.Ct. at 167. A factual basis demonstrates a defendant's recognition--despite his denial of guilt--that the evidence negates his claim of innocence, he has nothing to gain by a trial, and much to gain by pleading guilty. Id.
Neither this Circuit nor the former Fifth Circuit, whose decisions are binding on this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sebulski v. Sec'y, Case No. 3:16-cv-831-J-34PDB
...factual basis before accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere that is not accompanied by a claim of innocence." Wallace v. Turner, 695 F.2d 545, 548 (11th Cir. 1983). This is so because "[s]uch pleas do not present the issue of voluntariness, the fundamental constitutional consideratio......
-
Metheny v. State
...Cir.1988); Smith v. McCotter, 786 F.2d 697, 702 (5th Cir.1986); Willbright v. Smith, 745 F.2d 779, 780 (2d Cir.1984); Wallace v. Turner, 695 F.2d 545, 547 (11th Cir.1983); Edwards v. Garrison, 529 F.2d 1374, 1376 (4th Cir.1975); People v. Hoffard, 10 Cal.4th 1170, 43 Cal. Rptr.2d 827, 899 P......
-
Lynch v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
...factual basis for the plea as an essential part of the constitutionally required finding that the plea was voluntary.” Wallace v. Turner, 695 F.2d 545, 548 (11th Cir.1983) (citing North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 38 n. 10, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970)); see also Meyers v. Gilli......
-
Matthew v. Johnson
...are under no constitutional duty to establish a factual basis for the guilty plea prior to its acceptance . . . ."); Wallace v. Turner, 695 F.2d 545, 548 (11th Cir. 1983) (holding that the Due Process Clause does not impose a constitutional duty on state trial judges to ascertain a factual ......
-
Chapter 2 - § 2.4 • REQUIREMENTS OF A VALID GUILTY PLEA
...in a case involving an Alford plea may raise a constitutional issue. Willett v. Georgia, 608 F.2d 538 (5th Cir. 1979); Wallace v. Turner, 695 F.2d 545 (11th Cir. 1983); see generally J. Bond, Plea Bargaining and Guilty Pleas, § 3.55(c)(3) (2d ed. 1982). § 2.4.15—Ascertaining the Defendant's......
-
Chapter 2 - § 2.3 • ALFORD PLEAS
...basis must be stated when a defendant tenders an Alford plea. See Willett v. Georgia, 608 F.2d 538 (5th Cir. 1979); and Wallace v. Turner, 695 F.2d 545 (11th Cir. 1983); and see generally J. Bond, Plea Bargaining and Guilty Pleas, § 3.55(c)(3) (2d ed., 1982). The Tenth Circuit case of Freem......