Opinion
NO. 2015 KW 0924
08-18-2015
STATE OF LOUISIANA v. CODY WILLIFORD
In Re: State of Louisiana, applying for supervisory writs, 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 12-14-0742. BEFORE: PETTIGREW, McCLENDON AND CRAIN, JJ.
WRIT GRANTED. The State seeks supervisory review of the trial court's ruling only as to case number 1688971. The State met its initial burden of proof by introducing the judgment showing that the respondent has a prior conviction for driving while intoxicated and that he was represented by counsel at the time he entered the guilty plea. The burden to produce any affirmative evidence of an infringement of the respondent's rights or a significant procedural irregularity in the prior guilty plea then shifted to the defense. See State v. Carlos, 98-1366 (La. 7/7/99), 738 So.2d 556. The Louisiana Supreme Court made clear in State v. Balsano, 2009-0735 (La. 6/19/09), 11 So.3d 475, that for out-of-state guilty pleas, a defendant must show more than a technical violation of the three-right prophylactic Boykin rule meant to facilitate the taking of voluntary guilty pleas in Louisiana and demonstrate that the guilty plea did not reflect a knowing and voluntary waiver of trial. In so holding, Balsano returned the jurisprudence "to its original substantive aspect" regarding the validity of non-Louisiana guilty pleas for use in habitual offender proceedings. Balsano, 11 So. 3d at 482. See also State v. Holden, 375 So. 2d 1372, 1374 (La. 1979) (for non-Louisiana pleas used to enhance sentence, the defendant has the affirmative burden of showing that he was in fact not advised, either by the court or through counsel, of the particular circumstances of his plea that were not touched upon in an otherwise sufficient colloquy). See State v. Morgan, 2013-1495 (La. 2/28/14), 134 So.3d 1160, 1161-62 (per curiam). The defense relied upon the same evidence introduced by the State, which was insufficient to meet respondent's burden. Therefore, the ruling granting the respondent's motion to quash is reversed, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings.
WJC
JTP
PMc
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT /s/_________
DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT
FOR THE COURT