In postconviction proceedings, the court frequently uses plea hearing statements to deny a challenge to a guilty plea. Often, this includes comments that the person understood their plea and any rights waived. The court may even ask if their lawyer was effective. The answers are invariably “yes,” since otherwise the court would reject the favorable deal.
What happens when buyer’s remorse sets in when the person discovers that their lawyer was wrong about the bargain, such as the sentence being much greater than expected? The prosecutor uses those hearing statements to convince the court to reject the guilty plea challenge.
How damaging are those plea hearing statements? Habeas petitioners often say they were following their lawyer’s instructions to say what was needed at the hearing. That may be true, but courts reject this. The Supreme Court has called a defendant’s plea hearing words a “formidable barrier” to a later guilty plea challenge. The high court added that this barrier is “not invariably insurmountable.” Blackledge v. Allison, 431 US 63 (1977).
The courts take plea hearing statements seriously. Judges have threatened perjury charges when defendants blame their lawyers for their in-court utterances. This swiftly defeats any challenge. But it’s wrong. A court cannot create a per se rule that plea hearing statements preclude future plea challenges.
In Tovar Mendoza v. Hatch, 620 F.3d 1260 (10th Cir. 2010), the court of appeals rejected a federal habeas denial. The habeas petitioner told the federal court his lawyer said, “Don’t worry. Trust me. Just follow my instructions.”
The judge rejected this and threatened perjury charges since this meant he lied at the plea hearing. But the appeals court disagreed. Instead, a federal court reviewing a habeas petition challenging a guilty plea must evaluate all the petitioner’s facts and allegations without relying on plea hearing remarks.
A habeas petitioner can dispute a guilty plea in the face of contradictory plea hearing statements if they establish facts that disprove those statements and have adequate evidence that their lawyer advised them to plead guilty. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), established the threshold for ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
Success depends on whether counsel improperly advised to plead guilty. Though high, it’s no higher than plea hearing statements’ “formidable barrier.”
Dale Chappell prepares people in sensitive, high-profile, and high-stakes federal cases for prison. He works with clients, families, and attorneys during pretrial, throughout incarceration, and during the transition to halfway house placement, home confinement, and supervised release.
Dale brings more than 17 years of experience, firsthand knowledge of the federal prison system, and experience testifying at high-profile public hearings on prison and criminal justice issues. He helps clients protect their safety and privacy, avoid decisions that can follow them throughout their sentences, and prepare for the strongest possible outcome at every stage.
Dale has written nearly 600 published articles on federal prison, post-conviction, and criminal justice issues.
Have questions?
Email Dale directly at dale@dale-chappell.com.
Leave a Reply