Opinion
I.D. No. 0601019849.
May 18, 2006.
R. David Favata, Esquire, Department of Justice Dover, Delaware.
Thomas D. Donovan, Esquire, Schwartz Schwartz, Dover, Delaware.
Dear Counsel:
On January 24, 2006, the Defendant pled guilty to Rape in the First Degree involving one daughter. On February 6, 2006, he pled guilty to Rape in the First Degree involving a second daughter. Defendant, Kennard C. Lane, Jr., seeks to withdraw his second guilty plea, arguing that his plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary because he was not informed of the nature of the charges and the penalties involved Special counsel was appointed to represent the Defendant to consider his oral motion pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 32. A hearing was conducted on April 28, 2006. Specifically, at his hearing he claimed that he was forced into signing the plea agreement. Therefore, he is attempting to withdraw his plea.
For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's Motion to Withdraw his Guilty Plea is denied.
Discussion
Superior Court Criminal Rule 32(d) states that this Court may permit the withdrawal of a guilty plea prior to sentencing if the defendant shows "any fair and just reason." It is within the sound discretion of this Court whether to allow the withdrawal. "[I]n order for this Court to allow the Defendant to withdraw his guilty plea, the Defendant must establish that the plea agreement was not voluntarily entered or that the Defendant entered the agreement because he misapprehended or misunderstood his legal rights." The questions considered by this Court in deciding whether a fair and just reason is present are: (1) was there a procedural defect in taking the plea; (2) did the defendant knowingly and voluntarily consent to the plea agreement; (3) does the defendant have a basis to assert legal innocence; (4) did the defendant have adequate legal counsel throughout the proceedings; and (5) does granting the motion prejudice the state or unduly inconvenience the Court.The above inquiries will be addressed seriatim. First, there was no allegation of a procedural defect in taking the plea. As for the second question, Defendant contends that he did not knowingly and voluntarily consent to the plea agreement. He testified that he felt forced to sign the plea agreement. However, the transcript of his second plea colloquy reads:
THE COURT: Has anyone forced or threatened you into entering into this plea?
THE DEFENDANT: No, sir.
THE COURT: Do you have any questions about your plea?
THE DEFENDANT: No, sir. I would just like to say I'm sorry for it, what has happened. You know, I wish I had a time machine, could take back the time.
THE COURT: Understood. Thank you, very much.
THE DEFENDANT: You're welcome, sir.
THE COURT: Are you in fact guilty of this offense?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Thank you. And did you sign the form?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I did.
THE COURT: And also the plea agreement form?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Thank you, sir.
Does the plea agreement form reflect what you've agreed to do in this case?
THE DEFENDANT: I beg your pardon?
THE COURT: Is the plea agreement a statement of what you've agreed in this case?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir, I do.
THE COURT: Thank you. Have you had enough time to review the matter with your attorney?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you believe your attorney has fully advised you of your rights pertaining to your plea?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Has she otherwise represented you in this case to your satisfaction?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Thank you. All right. Mr. Favata and Miss Amalfitano, is there any reason why the Court should not accept the plea?
MR. FAVATA: No, Your Honor.
MISS AMALFITANO: No, Your Honor.
THE DEFENDANT: Thank you.
THE COURT: Very well.
All right. The Court finds the plea is made knowingly and voluntarily with an understanding of the plea and the consequences that can follow; the plea will be accepted. And in accordance with the recommendation here, I will require a presentence investigation.
Defendant's testimony that he felt coerced is contradicted by his plea colloquy. In addition, Miss Amalfitano provided contradictory testimony. During the hearing on the motion to withdraw Defendant's guilty plea, Miss Amalfitano testified that she discussed the second set of charges relating to Yvonne with Defendant on February 3, 2006. According to Miss Amalfitano, as in the case of the first plea, Defendant decided that it was in his best interest to plead guilty to one charge of rape in the first degree rather than face trial on several charges.
Moreover, Defendant conceded that the reason he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea is that he thought he could get a better deal. In fact, Mr Favata asked, "And that's why you're unhappy with the plea that you entered on February 6, 2006, correct? You are not happy because you think you should have gotten a better deal?" Defendant answered, "Yes, sir."
Defendant continued speaking after his answer, "Yes, sir." However, those statements were striken as not responsive to the question.
Defendant also argued that he was unaware that by pleading guilty on February 6, 2006, to the charges related to Yvonne that he was facing an additional minimum mandatory sentence of 15 years, creating a minimum mandatory sentence of 30 years based on the two plea agreements. However, Miss Amalfitano testified that she explained to Defendant that he was facing a minimum mandatory sentence of 15 years for each count of rape in the first degree.
This Court does not believe that Defendant was coerced into entering a guilty plea on the second set of charges on February 6, 2006. Defendant simply was unhappy with the fact that his minimum mandatory sentence was 30 years when other inmates had received lesser sentences for similar charges. Therefore, he wanted to renegotiate his plea agreements. Unfortunately for Defendant, such an explanation does not constitute a fair and just reason to withdraw a guilty plea. Nor do such circumstances render his plea agreement unknowing and involuntary.
The third inquiry is inapplicable because Defendant confessed to raping both of his daughters. His only defense to the charges relating to Yvonne is that she was 16 when he raped her. However, Miss Amalfitano testified that Defendant conceded that it could have happened a month before her 16th birthday. Thus, this argument would not provide a fair and just reason to withdraw his guilty plea.
Defendant did have adequate representation throughout the proceedings, provided by Miss Amalfitano. In both his first and second plea colloquies, Defendant testified that he was satisfied with Miss Amalfitano's counsel.
There is no reason to consider the final inquiry because this Court has already determined that Defendant failed to provide any fair and just reason justifying the withdrawal of his guilty plea.
Based on the foregoing, Defendant's Motion to Withdraw his Guilty Plea is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.