Appellate Law

CA1: voluntary guilty pleas, collateral consequences, and young people in jail

By S. COTUS

US v. Ward, No. 06-2354 (2/29/08).  The clerk who wrote it explains the plight of a typical poor defendant.  He even admits that some people go to ?worse? schools than others, and seems to be sympathetic to his failed attempts to better himself.  Of course, he sides with the government and affirms an ?enhanced? 10 year sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 851.  But, it is the thought that counts. 

Anyway, at an earlier state court plea colloquy, the defendant plead guilty.  After he was convicted in federal court he moved in state court to vacate the underlying plea on the basis that the trial court didn?t comply with state rules for accepting guilty pleas.  That motion was denied without findings of fact.  Then, in the federal proceedings the defendant argued that the earlier plea wasn?t valid.  No evidence was submitted by either party beyond the state court record.  The First explains that it thinks that ?Even if Boykin [v. Alabama] did not constitutionalize Rule 11, it unmistakably held that a trial court must produce a record adequate for a reviewing court to conclude that the constitutional requirements of a plea have been met.?

The First looks at the transcript and the state court record (including a waiver form) and concludes that the plea was knowing and voluntary even though it didn?t really stick to a script to assess voluntaryness.

Judge Oberdorfer (D.D.C.) concurs to say that he isn?t comfortable with sending young people to jail for a long time.  However, his concerns are misplaced because there is evidence in the record to suggest that the defendant was from a poor family and would have ended up in prison for life anyway.

Full post as published by Appellate Law and Practice on March 03, 2008 (boomark / email).