CR-12-0229 In the Court of of Criminal Alabama AMY BISHOP ANDERSON, Appellant, v. STATE OF ALABAMIA, Appellee. On A p p e a l f r o m t h e C i r c u i t Madison County (CC-11-1131) BRIEF OF APPELLEE Court of Appeals
General
Office of the Attorney General C r i m i n a l Appeals D i v i s i o n P.O. Box 300152 501 W a s h i n g t o n A v e n u e Montgomery, AL 36130-0152 (334)242-7300; (334)353-0415* F a x : (334)242-2848 docketroom@ago.state.al.us
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT The App. State does not request oral argument. See A l a . R.
P. 3 4 ( a ) ( 3 ) .
TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES STATEMENT OF THE CASE STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES STATEMENT OF THE FACTS STANDARDS OF REVIEW SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ARGUMENT I. A n d e r s o n W a i v e d H e r R i g h t To A p p e a l As P a r t Of Her P l e a A g r e e m e n t s W i t h The S t a t e , A n d T h i s C o u r t S h o u l d D i s m i s s Her A p p e a l Anderson Failed A p p e l l a t e Review To Preserve Her Claims For 20 i i i v 1 4 5 12 14 17
17
II.
I I I . A n d e r s o n ' s C h a l l e n g e s To The V o l u n t a r i n e s s Of Her G u i l t y P l e a s A r e M e r i t l e s s A. Anderson's C l a i m That H e r G u i l t y P l e a s Were R e n d e r e d I n v o l u n t a r y B e c a u s e o f t h e T r i a l C o u r t ' s F a i l u r e t o I n f o r m Her o f t h e C o r r e c t Minimum P o t e n t i a l Sentence f o r t h e Attempted Murder Charges During the G u i l t y Plea Colloquy I s M e r i t l e s s 1. The t r i a l c o u r t ' s u s e a n d a c c e p t a n c e of t h e I r e l a n d form s a t i s f i e d t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f R u l e 1 4 . 4 ( a ) (1) ( i i ) of t h e Alabama R u l e s of Criminal Procedure
22
25
26
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS - (continued) 2. Despite the trial court's misstatement during the colloquy, Anderson k n o w i n g l y and v o l u n t a r i l y pleaded g u i l t y
31
B.
A n d e r s o n ' s C l a i m T h a t H e r G u i l t y P l e a Was Rendered Involuntary Because t h e T r i a l C o u r t F a i l e d t o I n f o r m H e r T h a t She Was W a i v i n g t h e R i g h t t o A p p e a l by P l e a d i n g Guilty Is Meritless Anderson's C l a i m That Her G u i l t y Pleas Were R e n d e r e d I n v o l u n t a r y by t h e T r i a l C o u r t ' s A l l e g e d F a i l u r e t o G i v e H e r an O p p o r t u n i t y t o Comment on H e r A t t o r n e y s ' Performance I s M e r i t l e s s Anderson's C l a i m That Her G u i l t y Pleas Were R e n d e r e d I n v o l u n t a r y by t h e T r i a l C o u r t ' s A l l e g e d F a i l u r e t o Determine That She Understood the Nature and t h e M a t e r i a l Elements o f t h e Charges a g a i n s t Her I s M e r i t l e s s Anderson's C l a i m That Her G u i l t y P l e a t o the C a p i t a l M u r d e r C h a r g e Was R e n d e r e d I n v o l u n t a r y B e c a u s e She Was R e q u i r e d t o P r o c e e d t o T r i a l on T h a t C h a r g e D e s p i t e B e i n g T o l d T h a t She Was W a i v i n g H e r R i g h t to a Trial by Pleading Guilty Is Meritless A n d e r s o n ' s C l a i m s That Her G u i l t y P l e a s Were Rendered Involuntary Because t h e T r i a l C o u r t F a i l e d t o I n f o r m H e r T h a t She Had t h e R i g h t t o P e r s o n a l l y C o n f r o n t t h e W i t n e s s e s A g a i n s t H e r a n d T h a t She Had t h e R i g h t t o Have t h e A i d o f C o m p u l s o r y P r o c e s s i n S e c u r i n g t h e A t t e n d a n c e o f Any W i t n e s s e s T h a t She Wanted t o T e s t i f y A r e Meritless
40
C.
42
D.
44
E.
48
F.
49
i ii
52
IV.
54 57 58
iv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases A l d e r m a n v . S t a t e , 615 So. 2 d 640 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1992) Bank of Anniston v. Farmers & M e r c h a n t s S t a t e Bank o f Krum, T e x . , 507 So. 2 d 927 ( A l a . 1987) Brown v . S t a t e , 695 So. 2 d 153 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1996) Brown v . S t a t e ^ 705 So. 2 d 871 C r i m . A p p . 1997) Cashin (Ala. v. S t a t e , 428 So. C r i m . A p p . 1982) (Ala. 21 31
39-40
2 d 179 31 2 d 331 33
C o c h r a n v . S t a t e , CR-10-0516, 2012 WL 2481649 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . June 29, 2012) D a v i s v . S t a t e ^ 348 So. 2 d 844 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1977) D i n g l e r v. S t a t e , ( A l a . 1981) Ex parte C o u l l i e t t e , ( A l a . 2003) Sorsby, 408 So. 2 d 530
46
26
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - (continued) Cases - (continued) Handley v. S t a t e , 686 So. 2 d 540 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1996) (on r e t u r n t o remand) H i l l v . L o c k h a r t , 474 U.S. S. C t . 366 (1985) 52, 106 12, 31
33
I r e l a n d v . S t a t e , 4 7 A l a . App. 65, 250 So. 2 d 602 (1971) McCary v. S t a t e , 93 So. ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2011) 3d 1002
25
33
M c C l a r e n v . S t a t e , 500 So. 2d 1325 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1986) M c D o u g a l v . S t a t e , 526 So. 2 d 897 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1988) N i c k s v . S t a t e , 783 So. 2 d 895 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1999) N o r t h C a r o l i n a v. A l f o r d , 25, 91 S. C t . 160 (1970) 400 U.S.
33
46-47
35 33-35
35
P r i t c h e t t v . S t a t e , 686 So. 2d 1300 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1996) R i l e y v . S t a t e , 892 So. 2 d 471 C r i m . A p p . 2004) Sanders v. S t a t e , 414 So. ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1982) (Ala.
32, 35-36
30, 33
2 d 482 53
vi
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - (continued) Cases - (continued) S h o u l d i s v . S t a t e , 953 So. 2d 1275 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2006) T r i c e v . S t a t e , 601 So. 2 d 180 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1992) Twyman (Ala. v. S t a t e ^ 1974) 300 So. 2d 124 26, 30 539 F.2d 32 2d 367 26, 29, 3 1 , 41, 43, 45, 51
21
31-35
Watson v . S t a t e , 808 So. 2d 77 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2001) W h i t e v . S t a t e , 4 So. 3d 1208 C r i m . A p p . 2008) White v. S t a t e , 888 So. ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2004)
Williams v. Smithy 591 F.2d
19-20
(Ala. 33
2 d 1288 33
169 (2d
Cir.
1979)
34-35
Statutes Code o f A l a b a m a 13A-4-2 13A-4-2 (d) (1) 13A-5-6(a) 13A-5-6 (a) (4) (1975) 1 27 27 27
v ii
Rules Ala. R. A p p . P. i
34(a) (3)
Ala.
R. C r i m . P. 4, 14-15, 17, 22-23, 26, 31, 52-53 44-45 26, 29, 39 49-52 40-41 26 42-43 26, 29, 3 1 , 41, 43, 45, 51 53 15-17, 54-55 13
14.4(a) 1 4 . 4 ( a ) (1) ( i ) 14. 4 (a) (1) ( i i ) 14. 4 (a) (1) ( v i ) 14. 4 (a) (1) ( v i i i ) 14.4 (a) (1-2) 1 4 . 4 ( a ) (3) 14.4(d) 14.4(e) 2 6 . 9 ( b ) (4) 26.9 (b) (4) ( i - i i )
vi i i
STATEMENT OF THE CASE Amy Bishop Anderson appeals of capital from her guilty plea counts life
convictions of attempted
of
imprisonment capital of
murder
conviction) murder
imprisonment
her attempted
Anderson's
and s e n t e n c i n g p r o c e e d i n g s .
See (C. 1; R. 1;
Supp. R. 1 ) . On indicted the March 11, 2011, t h e Madison f o r one c o u n t murders of County Grand Jury on
Anderson
of capital people
intentional or
of three
t o one 13A-5of
scheme
course
conduct
i n violation
o f t h e Code murder
o f Alabama,
and t h r e e
counts
i n violation
o f Alabama. waived
22, guilty
2011, by
Anderson
arraignment
not
reason of mental
disease or defect.
(C.
416)
The w a i v e r o f a r r a i g n m e n t f o r m i n d i c a t e s t h a t Anderson o n l y p l e a d e d not g u i l t y by reason o f mental d i s e a s e o r defect. (C. 416) B u t t h e t r i a l court stated during
1
entered one
separate capital
and one
charges, to R.
guilty Supp.
11-12, the
of
murder, as
held
jury
trial
on
that
required 685;
o f t h e Code
of Alabama.
See
(C. 676,
S e p t e m b e r 24, 2012, t h e t r i a l began. and See (R. 1). Prior prosecutors them to
of the c a p i t a l trial,
murder her
Anderson, into
the
entered to
numerous
among of
the
items as
evidence as a
each
well
stipulation
Anderson to
t o stand
trial
understand
and q u a l i t y , of the
offenses.
765-69;
Anderson's g u i l t y p l e a c o l l o q u y n o t g u i l t y . (Supp. R. 5)
2
that
she
had
also
pleaded
S e c t i o n 13A-5-42 p r o v i d e s t h a t , while a defendant may plead guilty to a capital offense, the State must n e v e r t h e l e s s prove her g u i l t t o a j u r y beyond a reasonable doubt. 2
conclusion verdict
of
the
the of
a as
finding
685; the
trial
court to a
pursuant
agreements,
the p o s s i b i l i t y to
of p a r o l e terms
capital
c o n v i c t i o n and attempted
consecutive
f o r her
appeal she
guilty,
2-10),
file
any of
motions. 5,
a notice
November
698-99,
704-05) T h i s a p p e a l
follows.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES 1. waived she Should her right Anderson's t o appeal appeal as p a r t be d i s m i s s e d , of the plea where s h e agreements
review
14.4(a) respects
o f t h e Alabama
Rules
ina l l that
a n d , more i m p o r t a n t l y ,
A n d e r s o n k n o w i n g l y and v o l u n t a r i l y 4. claim without she trial to I s Anderson that the t r i a l entitled court
on h e r
informing moved
her that
she would
be a b l e
first court
t o withdraw
her g u i l t y t o inform
pleas,
was n o t r e q u i r e d
h e r what s h e n e e d e d s h e h a d no r i g h t to
do t o a p p e a l
a n d , i n any e v e n t ,
appeal?
THE
FACTS a professor in
b i o l o g y department s t o o d up
of Alabama and
Huntsville, of her
shot s i x In the
c o l l e a g u e s . See on her
83-84,
Podila, 16, R.
770-71,
89-95,
104-05,
Supp. to
o t h e r s , and 16; R.
tried 102;
shoot
89-95,
Supp. R. The
violent had
outburst been
rooted tenure.
recently
108-09) . A n d e r s o n had
However,
the
departmental be the
provost
decision,
ultimately
(R. 76-77, 108-09) appealed lacked the the denial power of to tenure actually to the faculty the
overrule
denial
of
tenure,
but See
could
recommend
that
however, recommend
ultimately of
denial
Anderson's
of Anderson's of 2009,
tenure
Fall
A n d e r s o n had been w o r k i n g point, not her 09) . During repeatedly professor against and help the asked who was course Dr. be the d e n i a l renewed
on y e a r l y meant
c o n t r a c t s up u n t i l that her
of tenure
last
at the u n i v e r s i t y .
108
of
the
appeal Moriarty,
Debra
with to
her
tenure have
her (R.
denial 71-72,
of
her
tenure 97)
68-69,
78-79,
Anderson by
"bugging"
other her
faculty quest
members
assistance with
f o r tenure.
to
Dr.
"was she
very was
most At one
other point,
denied
tenure. that
79-81) had
Moriarty a
the
Moriarty she
over"
"that 96-97,
she 100)
felt
like
tenure Dr.
i n having
decision Dr.
reversed. told
(R.
81-82)
Finally, there to
December o f nothing
Moriarty be
that
else that
could
needed
start
The the
i n a small
room on
biology there
department. twelve
See people
Besides 105)
were
meeting,
she
chair
conference very
room
small;
Moriarty
described
i t as
narrow
room,"
and
she
said
that
"[w]hen
the tables
are there
and t h e
chairs there." in
have p e o p l e
[Anderson's]
Anderson (R.
f o r her.
Anderson's
uncharacteristic depressed,
silence,
Anderson
seemed
she made
a mental
t o a s k how h e r j o b s e a r c h was
going. At
the meeting,
Dr. M o r i a r t y
looked bang."
at which p o i n t and c o v e r e d
And b e f o r e
up, t h e r e was
a second
"slump."
Dr. M o r i a r t y shoot
Davis
Moriarty,
Anderson
Moriarty
took
cover
under
the legs
table, as she
and
in
an yet Dr.
fired of
shot.
"stepped yelled,
out" "Amy,
grasp. do
90)
Moriarty you
stop. you do
this.
I helped
before; o f my Dr.
I will
help
Think (R.
o f my 90)
the
gun
on
pulled
gun
jammed and
d i d not crawled
M o r i a r t y then Anderson
out
of the still
followed
her,
trying
shoot her.
90-92) that the gun was not firing, Dr. Moriarty one of the 105)
back i n t o
the
conference the
room, and
colleagues in order
across
locked 91-92,
door"
Anderson the
outside.
room were on
telephones of
dying, to help
"[e]verybody
shot
someone who
was."
92-94;
Supp. R.
8-9).
Dr.
Moriarty
and
her
colleagues
were
trying
to
(R. 9 2 - 9 4 ) , A n d e r s o n went t o a r e s t r o o m on apparently washed the gun i n the 114, 122) sink, She and After class (R. him
her
receptacle 122)
i t with
t i s s u e paper.
106,
113-14,
the restroom, Anderson second 122-24) floor She and then asked called
a laboratory a
106-07,
husband
t o p i c k h e r up she
outside
(R. 106-07,
After of the police they 107) Dr. 778 wound then the
building officers
loading near
stationed
dock,
and (R.
t o o k A n d e r s o n i n t o c u s t o d y when she came o u t s i d e . Three Davis each of Anderson's died R. from victims died. Dr.
Johnson
and (C.
gunshot
wounds t o t h e h e a d ,
770-71;
to
she
killed,
Anderson Stephanie
wounded
other Joseph
her
department:
Monticciolo, Supp. R. 8)
L e a h y , and R o g e r C r u z - V e r a . See
(R. 92-93;
10
Once A n d e r s o n was t a k e n i n t o Department 101, 107) Investigator During the Charlie interview,
Police (R.
her.
Anderson
According
to Investigator I wasn't
happen.
there.
That's After
t h e theme
concluded,
a r r e s t e d Anderson.
11
STANDARDS OF REVIEW 1. part fully "[A] defendant can waive [her] right t o a p p e a l as as [s]he i s [s]he
of a negotiated advised
plea
agreement
so l o n g
so and
agrees
t h e agreement."
Ex p a r t e
12 So. 3d 139,
issue
f o r appellate court by
i t must and in
specific support
the
specific
thereof.'"
Ex p a r t e
Coulliette,
o f a g u i l t y p l e a i s ^whether t h e p l e a r e p r e s e n t s a and i n t e l l i g e n t of 474 action U.S. open choice to the S. among the alternative Hill v.
defendant.'"
omitted). I n cases where a d e f e n d a n t h a s p l e a d e d t o inform her that sentence guilty, the she has a u n l e s s she
court
t o appeal
i t pronounces
12
reserved
particular guilty
issue
or
issues
f o r appeal
she p l e a d e d plea(s)
and t h e t r i a l
has d e n i e d
See A l a . R. C r i m .
P. 2 6 . 9 ( b ) ( 4 ) ( i - i i ) .
13
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT On not court 14.4(a) appeal, Anderson argues that herguilty because provisions Criminal pleas were
knowingly
and v o l u n t a r i l y with
entered various of
the t r i a l of Rule
d i d n o t comply of
t h e Alabama Anderson
Rules that
argues
the t r i a l
1) c o r r e c t l y f o r each
inform
h e r o f t h e minimum murder
sentence she 2) i n f o r m
o f t h e attempted guilty,
charges;
t h a t , by p l e a d i n g unless
s h e was w a i v i n g issues
appeal
she r e s e r v e d
specific
appealed from t h e d e n i a l o f a motion t o withdraw h e r g u i l t y pleas; 3) a f f o r d her the opportunity 4) d e t e r m i n e t o comment that on her
performance;
charges and the elements o f the charges a g a i n s t heraccurate murder information because about h e r g u i l t y i ttold plea
charge
to a trial on t h a t
by p l e a d i n g
was s t i l l pleading
guilty,
s h e was w a i v i n g witnesses,
confront have
the State's
as w e l l
as t h e r i g h t
t h e a i d o f compulsory appear at t r i a l .
process
witnesses
Anderson
14
trial
court
failed of the
to
comply
with of
the
provisions
of
Rule at
Alabama
Rules
Procedure she
i t d i d not moved to
inform withdraw
that
i f she for
guilty
However,
reasons
stated
below,
Anderson claims. to
appeal
of her p l e a
Therefore,
this
i f this claims
appeal
Court,
Anderson's
never
therefore,
before based
them. her
First,
challenges
The
record
trial
the p r o v i s i o n s plea
14.4(a)
proceedings. that
significantly,
shows
Anderson
k n o w i n g l y and v o l u n t a r i l y
pleaded g u i l t y .
Thus, A n d e r s o n i s
15
not
entitled
to
r e v e r s a l based guilty
on
any
of
her
challenges
claim
that of
with
Anderson not to
the she
i t did
tell
her
However, to
not
the
inform do of to
has an
pleaded appeal. no
must
to pursue
facts
right trial
appeal, to tell
Rule s.
her
Anderson i s not
e n t i t l e d t o a r e v e r s a l b a s e d on t h i s
16
ARGUMENT I. Anderson Waived Her R i g h t To Appeal As Part Of Her P l e a Agreements With The S t a t e , And This Court Should Dismiss Her Appeal. In her pleas the Rule See the the her were brief not on appeal, Anderson argues t h a t her and voluntarily entered guilty because of
trial
court of
comply w i t h Rules of
various
provisions
14.4(a)
Alabama at to
Criminal
Procedure. that of
Alabama without to
Rules
Criminal that
a d v i s i n g her her
a p p e a l i f she
withdraw
guilty
pleas. her
Brief
However,
Anderson her
waived plea
appeal the
entered
into
guilty, with
into
plea one to
668-69, to and of
agreements, attempted to
Anderson murder
agreed charges,
guilty district
attorney that
agreed would
recommend
run for
another
sentence
murder
conviction.
17
(C. plead
668-69) guilty
In to
the
other
Anderson district
agreed
to
capital
murder,
the
attorney without
consecutively convictions. as
677-78)
signed
d i d her
attorneys,
attorney, 678)
assistant
district
attorneys.
waiver by
accepting
terms with
he/she v o l u n t a r i l y he/she is
surrendering, collaterally
waives
otherwise 678) In
attack
this
plea." end of
a d d i t i o n to
her
signature the
waiver
p r o v i s i o n s on
" [A] of a
defendant
[her] so of
right long
to as
appeal [s]he so
as is
negotiated of the
plea
agreement
advised
doing
and Ex
voluntarily
agrees
the
agreement."
18
( A l a . 2007). that
"[A] c o l l o q u y
with
defendant right
t o appeal
he o r she c h o s e t o w a i v e
right A has
waiver.
signed
waived
appeal
s u f f i c i e n t . " Watson v . S t a t e , App. 2 0 01). Again, waived her Anderson signed right initialed to
(Ala. Crim.
appeal
provisions
was
sufficient
to
establish Watson,
waived
her right
t o appeal.
Anderson
she e n t e r e d
agreements, she
t o appeal she
voluntarily
when
pleaded
(R. 167-68) light of the signed section plea agreement, Anderson's and at
on t h e w a i v e r court's
agreement, Anderson
trial
subsequent
with
sentencing,
the record
establishes
Anderson's
waivers
19
of
her right
t o appeal
were
voluntary
and a r e
therefore
"valid because no
issues
Court
consider
i n this
therefore, at 81.
i s due t o be
. . . dismissed."
Id.
II.
To
Preserve appeal
Her were
Claims properly
i f Anderson's
Court, settled
her s p e c i f i c that
claims
"^[r]eview
questions . . . be
and i s s u e s
properly an
raised
trial.'
^"[T]o
preserve to
issue
f o r appellate court by a
must
presented
the t r i a l
specific
motion s e t t i n g
out the s p e c i f i c
grounds i n support
To t h e e x t e n t t h a t A n d e r s o n may a r g u e t h a t h e r c h a l l e n g e s to the voluntariness of her g u i l t y pleas also c a l l into question the voluntariness of her waivers, that issue i s not p r o p e r l y b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t . T h i s C o u r t " w i l l consider the i s s u e o f t h e v o l u n t a r i n e s s o f t h e waiver of t h e r i g h t to appeal only i f that issue i s properly presented t o the t r i a l c o u r t , e i t h e r by way o f a m o t i o n t o w i t h d r a w t h e p l e a o r a m o t i o n f o r new t r i a l . " Watson, 808 So. 2d a t 8 1 . A n d e r s o n d i d n o t move t o w i t h d r a w h e r g u i l t y p l e a , n o r d i d she move f o r a new t r i a l . T h e r e f o r e , t h i s Court w i l l not c o n s i d e r any c h a l l e n g e t o t h e v o l u n t a r i n e s s o f h e r w a i v e r s . Id.
3
20
thereof.'"
Ex
parte
Coulliette, "^Even
857
So.
2d
793,
794 claims to
2003) ( c i t a t i o n s be waived on
omitted). appeal
constitutional
i f not v.
Shouldis
So.
2006) ( q u o t i n g
Brown
State^
( A l a . C r i m . App.
A n d e r s o n n e v e r moved t o w i t h d r a w h e r did she present pleas to her challenges trial to the by the
guilty
the
court
comply w i t h her.
the
provisions
sentenced to the
Anderson has
claims
failed
those 857 to
claims So. 2d
for at
Court's
review. even if
determine i t , her
properly go no
before
claims the
this
judgment o f t h e t r i a l
this on they
Court, those
claims
because,
reasons
below,
are m e r i t l e s s .
21
I I I . Anderson's Challenges To The G u i l t y Pleas Are M e r i t l e s s . As were with Rules 30). noted above, Anderson claims
Voluntariness
Of
Her
that court
her g u i l t y failed of
pleas
involuntary various
because
provisions
14.4(a)
the Brief
(Appellant's before
that,
a defendant
the t r i a l that
plea
is
voluntarily. cases:
Specifically,
R u l e 14(a) p r o v i d e s
that, i n felony
[T]he court s h a l l not accept a p l e a of g u i l t y without f i r s t addressing the defendant p e r s o n a l l y i n t h e p r e s e n c e o f c o u n s e l i n open c o u r t f o r t h e purposes o f : (1) A s c e r t a i n i n g t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t has a f u l l understanding o f what a p l e a o f g u i l t y means a n d its c o n s e q u e n c e s , by i n f o r m i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t o f and d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t u n d e r s t a n d s : ( i ) The n a t u r e o f t h e c h a r g e a n d t h e m a t e r i a l elements of the offense t o which the p l e a i s offered; ( i i ) The m a n d a t o r y minimum p e n a l t y , i f any, and t h e maximum p o s s i b l e p e n a l t y p r o v i d e d by law, including any enhanced sentencing provisions; (iii) I f applicable, the fact that sentence may run consecutively to concurrently with another sentence sentences; the or or
22
( i v ) The f a c t t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t has t h e r i g h t t o p l e a d n o t g u i l t y , n o t g u i l t y by r e a s o n o f m e n t a l d i s e a s e or d e f e c t , or b o t h not g u i l t y and n o t g u i l t y by r e a s o n o f m e n t a l d i s e a s e o r d e f e c t , and t o p e r s i s t i n s u c h a p l e a i f i t has a l r e a d y b e e n made, o r t o p l e a d g u i l t y ; (v) The f a c t t h a t to remain s i l e n t t e s t i f y or give h e r s e l f , b u t has w i s h e s t o do so, behalf; t h e d e f e n d a n t has t h e r i g h t and may n o t be c o m p e l l e d t o evidence against himself or the r i g h t , i f the defendant t o t e s t i f y on h i s o r h e r own
(vi) The f a c t t h a t , by e n t e r i n g a p l e a of guilty, the defendant waives the right to t r i a l by j u r y , t h e r i g h t t o c o n f r o n t witnesses a g a i n s t him o r h e r , t h e r i g h t t o c r o s s - e x a m i n e witnesses o r have them c r o s s - e x a m i n e d i n t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s p r e s e n c e , t h e r i g h t t o t e s t i f y and present evidence and witnesses on the d e f e n d a n t ' s own b e h a l f , and t h e r i g h t t o have the a i d of compulsory process i n s e c u r i n g the attendance of w i t n e s s e s ; ( v i i ) The f a c t t h a t , i f t h e p l e a o f g u i l t y i s a c c e p t e d by t h e c o u r t , t h e r e w i l l n o t be a f u r t h e r t r i a l on t h e i s s u e o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s g u i l t ; and (viii) The f a c t t h a t t h e r e i s no r i g h t to appeal unless the defendant has, before entering the plea of guilty, expressly r e s e r v e d the r i g h t t o appeal w i t h respect t o a p a r t i c u l a r i s s u e or i s s u e s , i n which event appellate review shall be limited to a determination of the issue or issues so reserved[.] Anderson with the claims that of of the trial court f a i l e d to comply 1) for 23
Rule the
correctly
each by
of
the
2) her
inform right or
her to
that, appeal
pleading she
unless from 3)
specific a motion
f o r appeal
appealed pleas;
the
denial
guilty her
a f f o r d her
the 4)
opportunity that
determine of the
elements
charges her
against
accurate
information
about
plea she
i t told
waiving was
then
she by
charge;
her to
that,
guilty, the of
was
waiving as
personally right
State's
witnesses,
w e l l as
the
t o have t h e appear
compulsory process
i n having
her
own
witnesses
trial.
reasons
claims
meritless.
Accordingly,
Anderson
e n t i t l e d t o a r e v e r s a l b a s e d on t h o s e
claims.
24
A.Anderson's Claim That Her G u i l t y Pleas Were Rendered I n v o l u n t a r y Because o f the T r i a l Court's F a i l u r e to Inform Her o f the C o r r e c t Minimum P o t e n t i a l Sentence f o r the Attempted Murder Charges During the G u i l t y P l e a Colloquy Is M e r i t l e s s . Anderson attempted the trial first claims that her g u i l t y plea t o the because
murder court
charges told
was r e n d e r e d
involuntary
h e r t h e i n c o r r e c t range colloquy.
4
o f punishment Brief a t 12
during 17)
her guilty
plea
Anderson court
trial
t h e minimum charges.
murder
Nevertheless, informed
the t r i a l
court
correctly
o f t h e minimum charges
possible
sentence
by u s i n g
and a c c e p t i n g form,
and P l e a form.
of Guilty
otherwise
as an i t is
a n d more that,
c l e a r from
despite
she i s n o t e n t i t l e d
I r e l a n d v. S t a t e ,
1. The t r i a l c o u r t ' s use and acceptance o f the I r e l a n d form s a t i s f i e d the requirements o f Rule 14.4(a) (1) ( i i ) o f the Alabama Rules o f C r i m i n a l Procedure. As Rules ensure maximum course, 14.4(a), to ensure s e t out above, of Criminal that range the Rule 1 4 . 4 ( a ) (1) ( i i ) o f t h e A l a b a m a requires the t r i a l the court to and Of Rule
Procedure defendant
understands before
minimum guilty. by
o f punishment
she p l e a d s
imposed
those
a defendant
and v o l u n t a r i l y P.
14.4(a)(1-2).
Supreme
h e l d i n Twyman "that
v. S t a t e ^ 300 So. 2d f o r m e x e c u t e d by t h e
130 ( A l a .
an I r e l a n d
defendant judge
by defense
c o u n s e l and t h e t r i a l
may e s t a b l i s h made,
intelligently
^provided
the r e c o r d s u p p o r t i n g that 2d 348 367, 370 So. 2d (Ala. 844, Crim. 846
Davis) . Criminal
Similarly, Procedure
Rule
provides of Rule
may
comply
c o l l o q u y w i t h the defendant
26
or
has
had
read
to
the
defendant,
and
understands C-
i t e m c o n t a i n e d i n Form C-44B, CR-51, CR-52, o r Form as t h e c a s e may In this case, be." Anderson (Form completed CR-51). (C. and signed
four
Ireland Ireland
670-75, murder
f o r the
attempted
punishment
t e r m b e t w e e n t e n y e a r s and n i n e t y - n i n e y e a r s . 674) she The used Ireland a forms also a d v i s e d Anderson commission of the of of
because the
firearm of was
i n the
f o r each instead on
674)
each form
of the o r had
declaring
read the
understood the
c h a r g e s , and
that
27
understood
her
rights.
(C.
671,
673,
675)
of
her
a t t o r n e y s a l s o signed the forms. Anderson which she also signed that the two there
(C. 671,
separate had
plea
agreements
stated
agreements.
Anderson's 678) the forms forms trial and with she and asked [was]
attorneys a l s o signed these During court that her had that she the she plea had
colloquy, signed
each to
had
had
enough
time 4)
over
She
signed
(Supp.
court
i f they
that the
the
going
A l l three
i n the
affirmative.
(Supp. R.
trial
attorneys
whether
they
believed and
acting in f u l l
knowledge of her
rights
28
and
entering" (Supp. R.
her 5)
plea
to
the
murder replied,
asked
whether any
evidence wanted to
that 5)
attorneys
Another R. 5)
attorneys then
replied, proceeded
(Supp.
court 5) with
Anderson's g u i l t y p l e a s . The attorneys read she the the trial was court's sufficient
Anderson
and
satisfy had
i t that
Anderson and
I r e l a n d f o r m s o r had information of
them r e a d
t o her
contained
range was
punishment. to
Thus,
Ireland
sufficient
comply w i t h So.
State, of
Crim. in
presence contained
the
executed set
the
rights
rights, this
extensive this
case-convince
court
29
requirement pleaded
and t h a t
voluntarily,
intelligently."). But, the as A n d e r s o n with for or a s s e r t s , when t h e t r i a l i t told her that court reviewed of life
charges
Anderson, the
t h e range was
attempted
murder term
charge between
imprisonment (Supp. R.
for a 3)
years.
enhancement
applied
and t h a t , was
t h e minimum (Supp. R.
f o r those as
charges
twenty Anderson
previously
sentencing forms,
range
understood
court's
colloquy
given
I r e l a n d forms
inadequate.
Thus, A n d e r s o n
i s not e n t i t l e d t o
r e l i e f b a s e d on t h i s
claim.
A n d e r s o n does c i t e R i l e y v . S t a t e , 892 So. 2d 471 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 4 ) , i n w h i c h t h i s C o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e f a c t that the appellant's attorney had a d v i s e d him o f t h e c o r r e c t s e n t e n c i n g range d i d not r e n d e r t h e t r i a l court's f a i l u r e t o do so h a r m l e s s . See R i l e y , 892 So. 2d a t 475-76;
8
30
2. D e s p i t e the t r i a l c o u r t ' s misstatement d u r i n g the c o l l o q u y , Anderson knowingly and v o l u n t a r i l y pleaded guilty. But Anderson even about i f the the trial court's of the failure weapon to inform
applicability that
enhancement
the f a c t
the I r e l a n d
correct
Anderson she
entitled
knowingly test
pleaded the
longstanding plea is
validity a
guilty and
^whether choice
represents alternative v.
voluntary
courses
of a c t i o n U.S. 52,
L o c k h a r t , 474
Alderman
1992) ( h o l d i n g 183
State, Court
( A l a . Crim.
1992), t h i s
stated:
Before accepting a g u i l t y plea, a trial judge "should undertake a f a c t u a l i n q u i r y to determine if the plea is voluntarily made with an u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e n a t u r e o f t h e c h a r g e and t h e consequences o f t h e p l e a . " C a s h i n v. S t a t e ^ 428 So.2d 179, 182 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 2 ) . The r e c o r d o f A p p e l l a n t ' s B r i e f a t 16-17. However, t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f R u l e 14.4(a) a r e n o t s a t i s f i e d by i n f o r m a t i o n a d e f e n d a n t ' s a t t o r n e y g i v e s him; t h e y a r e , however, s a t i s f i e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s use and a c c e p t a n c e o f an I r e l a n d f o r m . See Waddle, 784 So. 2d a t 370; A l a . R. C r i m . P. 1 4 . 4 ( d ) . 31
t h e p l e a p r o c e e d i n g s must a f f i r m a t i v e l y " r e f l e c t s u f f i c i e n t f a c t s from which such a determination c o u l d p r o p e r l y be made." D i n g l e r v. S t a t e ^ 408 So.2d 530, 532 ( A l a . 1 9 8 1 ) . W h i l e a t r i a l court's inquiry on t h e s e m a t t e r s n e e d n o t f o l l o w "any particular ritual," the inquiry must be "sufficient to determine that the defendant understands the charges against him and t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f h i s p l e a , and t h a t the defendant's plea Is truly voluntary." United States v. O' D o n n e l l y 539 F.2d 1233, 1235 ( 9 t h C i r . ) , c e r t , d e n i e d , 429 U.S. 960, 97 S . C t . 386, 50 L.Ed.2d 328 (1976) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . This voluntary admission in that Court both that also said i n Trice i t that "[a] plea an must be
i n that
^constitute[s] committed
intelligent and
[the defendant]
the offense,'
guilty, her
only
question
guilty that
constituted the
"intelligent
[she]
committed
o f f e n s e [ s ] . " They d i d . It plea must i s of course considered true that, " [ i ] n order for a guilty
t o be be
knowing
properly possible."
advised
of
Pritchett
State,
C o u r t has r e p e a t e d l y
t o know t h e p o s s i b l e
sentence
32
[s]he to
faces
i s absolute,"' advise
and
^the t r i a l
court's
failure
correctly
a defendant
sentences
before
accepting
[her] g u i l t y
( A l a . Crim.
( A l a . Crim.
t h e defendant
( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 6 ) ; ( A l a . Crim.
v. S t a t e , return
540, 541
App. 1 9 9 6 ) ( o n
t o remand); App.
v. S t a t e , Clemons
( A l a . Crim.
v. S t a t e ,
1989);
McClaren
v. S t a t e ,
i n t h e case that
higher
require
the accused
be i n f o r m e d o f
i n Trice, In that
case,
trial
However,
33
between a t r i a l about
court's the to
failure
any i n f o r m a t i o n
t h e range
of punishment. Trice,
court
t o advise
t h e range automatic
reversal given is
r u l e and h e l d
sentencing ^whether
possibilities, would
and, i f n o t , whether
plea.'"
I d . (Quoting
Williams
v. S m i t h y
(2d C i r . 1979)) .
In Peoples, t h i s Court, q u o t i n g T r i c e , s t a t e d t h a t "we must r e a f f i r m o u r e a r l i e r h o l d i n g t h a t ^ [ w ] h e r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t f a i l s t o a p p r i s e t h e d e f e n d a n t o f b o t h t h e maximum and minimum s e n t e n c e s , o r e i t h e r o f t h e t w o , a r e v e r s a l i s automatically mandated.'" Peoples, 651 So. 2d a t 1127 ( q u o t i n g T r i c e , 601 So. 2d a t 1 8 5 ) . A n d e r s o n r e l i e s on t h i s same q u o t a t i o n f r o m T r i c e i n h e r a r g u m e n t . (Appellant's B r i e f a t 17) B u t t h e P e o p l e s c o u r t m i s r e a d T r i c e , a n d so has A n d e r s o n . To be s u r e , the quotation from T r i c e i s a c c u r a t e ; b u t i t has b e e n t a k e n o u t o f c o n t e x t . I n T r i c e , t h i s C o u r t d i d s t a t e t h a t i t s p r i o r p r a c t i c e had been t o automatically reverse cases where the defendant was m i s i n f o r m e d a b o u t t h e p o s s i b l e s e n t e n c i n g r a n g e . T r i c e , 601 So. 2d a t 185. T h i s was t h e s o u r c e o f t h e q u o t e t h a t t h i s C o u r t used i n Peoples and t h a t Anderson uses i n h e r b r i e f .
9
34
In
addition to
Trice,
this
Court
has
also
t h a t the
trial
court's
g i v i n g the
Pritchett, possibility
f o r e c l o s e the demonstrate .
to
that
That standard of automatic r e v e r s a l has been a p p l i e d by t h i s C o u r t t o c a s e s where t h e trial court i n c o r r e c t l y informed the defendant of the maximum and minimum p e n a l t i e s . R e c e n t l y , however, we have e s p o u s e d t h e view of s e v e r a l of the federal c i r c u i t courts: "[W]here the defendant i s g i v e n sentencing misinformation, t h e mere f a c t t h a t he was g i v e n such m i s i n f o r m a t i o n "^"does n o t end t h e m a t t e r . ^The standard was and remains whether the plea represents a v o l u n t a r y and intelligent c h o i c e among t h e a l t e r n a t i v e c o u r s e s of action open to the defendant.' North C a r o l i n a v. A l f o r d ^ 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S.Ct. 160, 164, 27 L.Ed.2d 162, 168 (1970). The dispositive issue ... is whether [the defendant] would have or would not have pleaded g u i l t y had he been given the correct [information]. See P i t t s v. U n i t e d S t a t e s ^ 763 F.2d 197, 201 (6th C i r . 1 9 8 5 ) ; W i l l i a m s v. S m i t h y 591 F.2d 169 ( [2nd C i r . ] 1 9 7 9 ) . " ' " Trice, 601 So. c i t a t i o n s and one 2d at 185 (emphasis footnote omitted). in Trice, other
35
despite form,
any
m i s i n f o r m a t i o n on was properly
the
e x p l a n a t i o n of
the
appellant
i n f o r m e d and
realized Crim.
State, case
similar a
Anderson's. agreement
State wherein
fifteendegree.
i n the f i r s t
subsequently challenged in a petition that, due for writ to of Id. his the at
of h i s g u i l t y p l e a nobis on the he
ineffectiveness, punishment
informed charge.
minimum
f o r the
assault
In i t s of at
range Id.
punishment 899.
b e e n m i s s t a t e d on the trial
Ireland found
form.
Specifically, advised
court that
that
the
form
the
minimum i t was
assault
charge
ten
years
when
y e a r s . I d . a t 898. fifteen-year
the t r i a l t o which
court also
found was
sentence
McDougal
agreed
36
minimum
sentence
to
which
the
State
would
agree
and
that
aware o f t h a t that
fact.
Id. at counsel
found the
him
about by
sentencing
would
i f he trial
I d . at on the
Finally, form
Ireland
no b e a r i n g case],
on t h e d e f e n d a n t
entering
and was
This
Court
affirmed
the
trial
court's
denial
of this
" [ I ] t appears
n o t now
subsequently same
dissatisfied."
Ultimately, case.
principle
issue
here
is
whether
Anderson's
presented
against
during
of the
overwhelming. clear,
Because
on a l l o f certain
Anderson
37
on
and the
i t
was
at
least
that
death
c a p i t a l murder charge.
Presumably
based
on t h e
State's (C.
without
parole.
Anderson
agreed
to
accept
of
life
w i t h o u t p a r o l e f o r the c a p i t a l murder charge, she faced on as the the attempted length murder charges sentences
of those
on t h e o v e r a l l of that fact,
length Anderson
attempted
murder
charges
exchange she be
for
district terms
sentenced
of l i f e Anderson
on e a c h c h a r g e . and initialed
agreements the
- one
f o r the
capital
attempted
murder
charges
- setting
agreed-upon
terms.
(C. 668-69,
s e t o u t what be ( i f the
charges
trial
38
accepted the
the p l e a
agreement).
(C.
668-69,
677-78)
So, what
like her
defendant would
Anderson pleaded
McDougal,
2d a t 898-99. now plea Anderson to not i s asking the because this Court to find that her was the
murder
charges what
involuntary,
understand freely
d i d not
choose t o fully
trial
court,
after
during
enhancement 17)
i n her
B r i e f at
According
Anderson, had no
court's
although her
e f f e c t on
guilty
the
involuntary is a
clerical
error
this of
"would
Bank
39
v.
Farmers 930
State
Bank
of
Krum,
Tex.,
2d 927, this
case, Anderson " r e c e i v e d e x a c t l y t h a t f o r which [She] should not has So. now be permitted to
bargained. because
complain
[she] 526
knowingly what
voluntarily bargained
precisely
even i f
were p r o p e r l y b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t , i s m e r i t l e s s . B.Anderson's Claim That Her G u i l t y P l e a Was Rendered I n v o l u n t a r y Because the T r i a l Court F a i l e d to Inform Her That She Was Waiving the R i g h t to Appeal by P l e a d i n g G u i l t y Is M e r i t l e s s . Anderson next entered that guilty she as of claims that the her guilty plea was not to by Rule
trial her
court to do of
failed appeal by
waiving was
right to
pleading
required
Alabama at
Rules
18-21) fails.
However,
First, that by
forms she 1)
Anderson was
signed
advised right
her to
pleading
guilty, either:
waiving
her
i s s u e or or 2) 40
pleading
guilty
not);
to of
withdraw that
her
and did
sought not) .
to (C. of
motion use
673,
675,
trial
court's
forms, and
with
its
her
Ala.
R.
14.4(d).
this the
alone,
this in
claim the
Second, pleas
separate
inherent and
knowingly plea to
entered
agreements w i t h appeal
1 0
from (C.
her 669,
shows, t h e
the that
Rule
her
appeal
knowingly
waived guilty A
10
plea
agreements
pleas. the
Moreover, record
reasons that
stated i n Anderson
sub-issue voluntarily
above,
establishes
A n d e r s o n a l s o t o l d t h e t r i a l c o u r t a t s e n t e n c i n g t h a t she u n d e r s t o o d t h a t she was w a i v i n g h e r r i g h t t o a p p e a l when she p l e a d e d g u i l t y and t h a t she had v o l u n t a r i l y c h o s e n t o w a i v e t h a t r i g h t . (R. 167-68) 41
guilty
i n exchange
f o r sentences charge
of l i f e
without
murder
and l i f e
murder exactly
charges that
(C. 668-69,
f o r which
reasons, i fthis
Court, Anderson
would
n o t be
entitled
a r e v e r s a l b a s e d on i t . C.Anderson's Claim That Her G u i l t y Pleas Were Rendered I n v o l u n t a r y by the T r i a l Court's A l l e g e d F a i l u r e t o Give Her an Opportunity t o Comment on Her A t t o r n e y s ' Performance I s M e r i t l e s s . Anderson next claims that her guilty pleas were
the t r i a l a
t o make
statement
performance by Rule
which
i t was r e q u i r e d Rules of
t h e Alabama a t 22-23)
Criminal Rule
(Appellant's requires
Brief
Specifically,
the t r i a l
defendant
any o b j e c t i o n s
o r t o t h e manner
the t r i a l claim
fails. 42
Anderson "satisfied
stated with
on a l l f o u r
Ireland
forms
that and
services
his/her handling Again, forms, her See Ala. the t r i a l along with
o f my c a s e court's
i t s subsequent sufficient
attorneys, Waddle, R.
was
to satisfy
Crim.
the t r i a l colloquy
during had
whether
"done
f o r [her],
to this
point,
[she had] a s k e d them t o d o . " (Supp. R. 3) I n r e s p o n s e , replied, "Yes." (Supp. R. court 3) Thus, despite her
Anderson
the t r i a l
d i d g i v e A n d e r s o n an performance when
on h e r a t t o r n e y s '
she p l e a d e d g u i l t y . For fails. before the above-stated even reasons, Anderson's were argument properly to a
i f this would
argument n o t be
Anderson
entitled
r e v e r s a l b a s e d on i t .
43
D.Anderson's Claim That Her G u i l t y Pleas Were Rendered I n v o l u n t a r y by the T r i a l Court's A l l e g e d F a i l u r e to Determine That She Understood the Nature and the Material Elements of the Charges a g a i n s t Her Is Meritless. Anderson voluntary understood charges next claims the that her guilty d i d not pleas ensure elements to do were that of by not she the Rule
because the
trial and
court the
material
against of
which
i t was Rules It
required of is and
Brief
explain Anderson
offenses (Supp.
during the
guilty court
colloquy. required
2-11)
However,
therefore, this
claim
specifically i t d i d not
complains explain to
the
elements
murder so
her. as to
far
trial
c o u r t was
r e q u i r e d t o inform her t h a t :
the elements of c a p i t a l murder, i n [her] case, were t h a t , w i t h t h e i n t e n t t o c a u s e t h e d e a t h o f Gopi Podilla [sic], Adriel Johnson, and Maria D a v i s , she d i d i n t e n t i o n a l l y cause the death of Gopi Podilla [sic], Adriel Johnson, and Maria D a v i s , by one a c t o r p u r s u a n t t o one scheme o r c o u r s e o f c o n d u c t , and by s h o o t i n g them w i t h a firearm. 44
( A p p e l l a n t ' s B r i e f a t 24-25) But Anderson i s t r a v e l i n g under not require or the list a misconception. Rule trial the court to explain of those must the . . of
a defendant, in detail
elements
o r s e t out t o prove
those
charges.
court
Crim. trial
14.4(a)(1)(i).
The
court d i d j u s t that. First, understood 673, the 675, Anderson "the stated or on the Ireland against" use and forms her that (C. she 671, of
charge
charges court's
acceptance colloquy
Ireland and
Anderson
attorneys, Waddle,
was 784 P.
See
A l a . R. explain to
Crim. the
court
elements
during
Anderson d i d not
understood explained
charges
anything
45
to
her.
(Supp. the
R.
2)
By to
d e c l i n i n g to her,
have
the
trial the
invited that
which
complains, to r e l i e f . at *22
i s not 2012
entitled WL
C o c h r a n v. Crim.
2481649,
(Ala.
June
cannot
invite
e r r o r by
his
conduct
80) . the
served See
years
before
shootings.
worked w i t h on
several different
people and
Department,
during two
least
academic
papers.
also
writing the
a grant
with
Debra M o r i a r t y
shortly
shootings. she
competent as well
trial
against (Ala.
[her]." App.
Crim.
46
1999)(citations
and
extra
quotation
marks
omitted
and
i s capable
i n complete
of her mental
difficult
court
believed
h e r when
she
said that or
straightforward pursuant to
course
conduct,
p e o p l e ] by
shooting
a firearm,"
the crime
o f Murder [each
. . .
by s h o o t i n g 16)
of the three
personally charges
told
the her.
trial She
court,
against guilty
knowingly charges.
chose
to plead
t o those
47
E.Anderson's Claim That Her G u i l t y P l e a to the C a p i t a l Murder Charge Was Rendered I n v o l u n t a r y Because She Was Required to Proceed to T r i a l on That Charge D e s p i t e Being T o l d That She Was Waiving Her R i g h t to a T r i a l by P l e a d i n g G u i l t y Is M e r i t l e s s . Anderson capital trial whether Brief the to a at murder court she next claims was give her that her guilty plea to the the
charge not
rendered her
involuntary
because
did was
accurate to
information
about
waiving
right
a trial.
trial jury
that
her
despite
she
face at
capital
murder claims
(Appellant's she
Thus, A n d e r s o n accurate
because was
"was to at
provided a
voluntary,
informed
But
merit. Court,
Thus,
claim be
properly
before
this
Anderson
would
entitled
t o a r e v e r s a l b a s e d on i t . At only the the outset, the State notes that this claim relates of
murder p l e a . i t should
not
guilty claim
pleas
attempted
murder
charges.
48
As
discussed into a
above, plea
Anderson agreement
the State.
voluntarily (Supp. R.
pleaded 2-11).
has
of error to
to substantiate murder
that
rendered
because as
r a t i f y her of
required
t h e Code
A l a b a m a . A b s e n t more, t h i s
claim
F.Anderson's Claims That Her G u i l t y Pleas Were Rendered I n v o l u n t a r y Because the T r i a l Court F a i l e d t o Inform Her That She Had the R i g h t to P e r s o n a l l y Confront the Witnesses A g a i n s t Her and That She Had the R i g h t to Have the A i d o f Compulsory Process i n Securing the Attendance o f Any Witnesses That She Wanted t o T e s t i f y Are M e r i t l e s s . In guilty her f i n a l pleas, challenge claims to the voluntariness that her pleas failed were of her rendered
Anderson
because
the t r i a l
court
she had t h e r i g h t
to personally
a n d 2) s h e h a d t h e r i g h t in securing the
to the a i d of o f any
attendance
at t r i a l , both of of the
are notices
1 4 . 4 ( a ) (1) ( v i )
49
Alabama 29-30)
Rules
of
Criminal these
Procedure. are
(Appellant's and
Brief even
at i f be
However,
claims this
meritless,
t h e y were p r o p e r l y
before
Court,
requires
accepts she
defendant's that
guilty she is
understands with
associated to confront
a trial.
witnesses . . . and
cross-examined a i d of
t o have t h e
i n securing
demonstrates that
complied with
the
of
Anderson's did t e l l
shows t h a t
court
" w o u l d be
present a l l of
lawyers
cross-examine
(Supp. R. failed to
Thus, A n d e r s o n ' s argument t h a t her during the the colloquy witnesses that
to t e l l
the
right
personally incorrect.
confront
against
is factually
50
Second, specifically
the told
forms, i f she
which
Anderson to
proceeded as
right
w e l l as
State's also
witnesses[.]" her
informed
that to
right to
witnesses in 671,
[her]
behalf
and
attendance (C.
testimony
required
court." the to in
each i t with
Ireland her,
her
"rights
[had]
discussed she
explained,"
understood her
rights,
consequences of
court's with
acceptance
of
370;
Ala. she
Crim.
Thus, of her
Anderson's to
claims,
properly State's
personally
confront
and
51
the
a i d of
compulsory
process
testimony
of
any w i t n e s s e s t h a t she w a n t e d t o Furthermore, above, pleaded parole on the the for the
reasons
sub-issue
record in
that
Anderson of life
guilty on the
sentences and
capital
murder
charge (C.
murder that
668-69,
[she]
permitted to
complain
subsequently 899.
become d i s s a t i s f i e d . "
McDougal,
2d
of and
voluntarily even i f
guilty, were
argument
fails.
Therefore, Court,
this
issue
properly
before
this
A n d e r s o n w o u l d n o t be e n t i t l e d t o a r e v e r s a l b a s e d
on i t .
G.Anderson Is Simply Not E n t i t l e d to a R e v e r s a l Based on Her Challenges to the V o l u n t a r i n e s s of Her G u i l t y Pleas. In are the end, Anderson's c h a l l e n g e s t o her guilty pleas the of
claims to provisions
contrary, Rule
14.4(a)
i n a l l r e s p e c t s . More
i m p o r t a n t l y , the
reason
52
Rule pleads
14.4(a) guilty
is
to
ensure
that
defendant The
who
voluntarily. in fact,
these
reasons, this
arguments
properly
before
e n t i t l e d t o a r e v e r s a l b a s e d on the in State this she notes appeal will murder run See that, and be
them. should be
allowed to
guilty the
pleas,
for
attempted once
charges, subjected
will death
again
the
penalty. of a
Crim.
withdrawal
guilty
charges
d e f e n d a n t as or dismissal
amendment, agreement
reduction, s h a l l be
reinstated automatically.").
I t i s a l s o worth n o t i n g again t h a t t h i s i s the f i r s t time A n d e r s o n has challenged the v o l u n t a r i n e s s of her guilty pleas. As such, "[t]he tardiness of [her] claim[s] reflect[] upon [their] good faith, sincerity, and c r e d i b i l i t y . " S a n d e r s v. S t a t e , 414 So. 2d 482 , 484 (Ala. C r i m . App. 1982) ( a d d r e s s i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s c l a i m t h a t she was i n c o m p e t e n t t o e n t e r h e r g u i l t y p l e a , w h i c h was not r a i s e d u n t i l t h r e e weeks a f t e r she p l e a d e d g u i l t y ) .
11
53
IV.
Anderson's Claim That The T r i a l Court Exceeded I t s A u t h o r i t y When I t Sentenced Her Because I t Did Not Give Her Information About Her R i g h t To Appeal Is M e r i t l e s s . Finally, Anderson claims t h a t the t r i a l the of provisions Criminal her of Rule at to court f a i l e d of to the
comply Alabama it
with Rules
Procedure right
because
d i d not at
inform 20-21)
of her
claims could
court
[her]
filing
motion at 21)
withdraw
incorrect, her
inform
needed no to
to
do to her
to
appeal. and
right inform
appeal,
trial
otherwise.
Therefore, Rule a
fails. does r e q u i r e t h e right to like appeal this, trial when court i t to inform
26.9(b)(4) of her
defendant
pronounces defendant
sentence. has
However, guilty:
i n cases
where t h e
pleaded
the c o u r t s h a l l a d v i s e the defendant of h i s or her r i g h t t o a p p e a l only i n t h o s e c a s e s i n w h i c h t h e d e f e n d a n t ( i ) has e n t e r e d a p l e a o f g u i l t y , but b e f o r e e n t e r i n g t h e p l e a o f g u i l t y has e x p r e s s l y r e s e r v e d h i s or her r i g h t t o appeal w i t h r e s p e c t to a particular i s s u e or i s s u e s , or ( i i ) has 54
timely filed a motion to withdraw the p l e a g u i l t y and t h e m o t i o n has b e e n d e n i e d , e i t h e r o r d e r o f t h e c o u r t o r by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w . Ala. R. C r i m . P. 2 6 . 9 ( b ) ( 4 ) ( e m p h a s i s t o Anderson's the trial added). Rule
of by
argument, in any by
2 6 . 9 ( b ) (4) to
does a
court,
case,
inform a
defendant to did
that her
she
"could
appeal
first
filing the
motion court to
withdraw not
Accordingly, Anderson
trial
e r r by
what she
needed
do t o be a b l e t o a p p e a l . Furthermore, did had not r e q u i r e any right she R. did 2-11) . had not in this the t r i a l to appeal particular case, Rule 2 6 . 9 ( b ) (4) that she
c o u r t t o i n f o r m Anderson at a l l . When any at motion a motion issues the to time Anderson for of
pleaded See
not
reserve
appeal.
Likewise, filed a
withdraw denied.
much had
less not
had
such
Thus,
Anderson
satisfied either
o f t h e two
conditions
not r e q u i r e d t o i n f o r m her t h a t
beyond the r u l e
and
i t s requirements, the
fact of
t h a t Anderson
waived her r i g h t
t o a p p e a l as p a r t
55
her of
plea that
agreements fact,
with
678)
In
light trial
i t would
f o r the to
c o u r t t o i n f o r m A n d e r s o n t h a t she had a r i g h t For Thus, Court, on i t . the foregoing i f this would reasons, argument not be Anderson's were entitled
argument before
even
properly
Anderson
to a reversal
56
CONCLUSION Because Anderson the plea agreements waived her r i g h t with even t o appeal as p a r t o f this Court Court should i t ,i t
should
dismiss that
determine
appeal
i s properly before
her convictions
and s e n t e n c e s
f o r the reasons
Luther Strange Attorney General By: / s / M i c h a e l G. Dean M i c h a e l G. Dean Assistant Attorney General
57
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I h e r e b y c e r t i f y t h a t on t h i s electronically counsel in filed 8 t h day o f March, and s e r v e d a 2013, I copy on
the foregoing
f o r t h e A p p e l l a n t by e - m a i l ,
o r b y p l a c i n g t h e same
the United
S t a t e s m a i l , f i r s t - c l a s s p o s t a g e p r e p a i d , and
General
ADDRESS OF COUNSEL: O f f i c e of the Attorney General Criminal Appeals D i v i s i o n P.O. Box 300152 501 W a s h i n g t o n Avenue Montgomery, A l a b a m a 36130-0152 (334)242-7300; (334)353-0415* Fax: (334)242-2848 docketroom@ago.state.al.us
1525110/165613-001 58