NMSC: No Magic Words for Guilty Pleas

I’m a little slow here, but wanted to finally get around to the second of last week’s two New Mexico Supreme Court cases, State v. Yancey. In this case, the Court asks: “If a criminal defendant does not expressly state on the record “I plead guilty,” is the guilty plea enforceable? The court of appeals had answered “No.” The supreme court reverses, since (as all lawyers know) the better answer is always “maybe.”

The case and issue are simple enough. Yancey was charged with several related cases of fraud, embezzlement, and racketeering. On advice of counsel, he entered into three plea agreements. There was no agreement as to sentence. After a hearing, the court accepted the pleas. Yancey later received a sentence of twenty-one years incarceration.

After sentencing, Yancey sought to withdraw his guilty pleas. He argued that the pleas were involuntarily and unknowingly made because he had believed he would be sentenced to no more than 12 years in jail. But at the hearing on the motion to withdraw the pleas, Yancey again acknowledged under oath that there was a factual basis for the pleas and that he had been informed of his total exposure. Essentially, his argument was that he simply had not understood what he had been told. The district court denied Yancey’s motions an left the sentence intact.

The court of appeals reversed. It did not, however, do so based on the defendant’s arguments. Instead, the court focused on what it believed was a more fundamental error: that Yancey had not been asked to plead guilty in open court. Finding a constitutional requirement that the defendant admit guilt on the record, the court concluded that the guilty pleas were invalid.

The State appealed. On appeal, however, the question was not whether the district court had abused its discretion in refusing to allow the defendant to withdraw his plea. Instead, the Court examined the constitutional requirements of a guilty plea to determine whether defendants were required to admit guilt. The Court concluded that the key was whether the plea was knowing and voluntary. This was not assessed by magic words such as an admission of guilt, but by the totality of the circumstances.

Under a totality of the circumstances test, there was plenty of evidence to support the district court’s decision. The plea agreements themselves walked the defendant through the information he would have needed to make a knowing and voluntary plea. And the district court had questioned Yancey extensively at the change of plea hearing. Nothing in the agreement or the hearing suggested the plea was anything but knowing or voluntary.

Circling back to the bigger question, the Court acknowledged that while obtaining an admission of guilt is not required, it is a “best practice.” The Court therefore reversed the court of appeal’s decision to the contrary, and remanded for the court of appeals to consider the arguments that Yancey had made but that the court of appeals had not considered.

Looking for a New Mexico appellate attorney? Contact us or give me a call at (505) 273-9379.