REL: 10/31/2014

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter . Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions , Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229- 0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter . 

# SUPREME COURT O F ALA BAMA

OCTOBER TE RM, 2 014-2 015

_____ _____ _____ _____ 11312 82

_____ _____ _____ _____ Ex pa rte S tanfo rd Pr itche tt PETIT ION FOR WR IT OFCERT IORAR I TO THE COURT OFCRIM INAL APPEALS (In r e: Stanford Pri tchet t

v. Stateof Alabama) (Mare ngo C ircui t Cou rt, C C-7-1 12; Courtof C rimin al Appeals , CR- 13-04 38)

STUAR T, Ju stice .11312 82

WRIT DENIE D. NOOPIN ION. Bolin , Par ker, Shaw, Wise , andBrya n, JJ ., co ncur. Moore , C.J ., di ssent s. Main, J., recus es hi mself .*

*Just ice M a i n was a membe r of the Court of Crimi nal Appea ls wh en th at co urt c onsid ered an ea rlierappe al inthis case. 211312 82

MOORE , Chi ef Ju stice (dis senti ng). The trial court in this case denie d Stanf ord Pritc hett' s motio n to withd raw h is gu ilty plea. Beca use, in myview , the Court of Crimi na l Ap peals ' unpub lishe d memor andum affir ming the trial court 's judgm ent, Pritc hett v. State (No. C R -13- 0 4 3 8 , June 6, 2014) , ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Crim. App. 2 0 1 4 ) (tabl e), confl icts with the Alaba ma Rules of Crimi nal Proce dure and with our prece dent on the requi remen ts f o r a guilt y-ple a col loquy , I r espec tfull y dis sent from the d enial of Pr itche tt's petit ion f or a writ of ce rtior ari. Facts Pritc hett was charg ed with murde r made capit al becau se it

was commi tted by shoot ing into a vehic le; he plead ed guilt y to

a lesse r-inc luded charg e of murde r and agree d to a negot iated sente nce of 23 years . Durin g his plea heari ng the trial judge did not menti on or revie w the expla natio n-of- right s form with Pritc hett or ask if he under stood the right s he was waivi ng by plead ing guilt y (ex c ept for the right to appea l). The trial judge also did not revie w with Pritc hett the maximum sente nce

or minimum sente nce for the crime to which he was plead ing guilt y. The "Requ est for Guilt y Plea" form Pritc hett submi tted

311312 82

liste d the sente ncing range for the offen se of murde r as being from 10 to 99 years ' impri sonme nt or life impri sonme n t . In fact, the range was 20 to 99 years ' impri sonme nt becau se of an appli cable firea rm enhan cemen t. § 13A-5 -6(a) (4), Ala. C o de 1975.Actin g pro se , Pritc hett moved to withd raw his guilt y plea. The trial court denie d his motio n. The Court of Crimi nal Appea ls affir med its denia l by an unpub lishe d mem o r a n d um. Pritc hett v. St ate ( No. C R-09- 1050, Dec. 3, 2 010), 92 S o. 3d 816 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010) (tabl e). This Court reve r sed the Court of Crimi nal Appea ls' judgm ent on the g r o u n d that Pritc hett was not repre sente d by couns el in the proce eding s on his motio n for withd rawal of the plea. Ex parte Pritc hett, 117 So. 3d 356 (Ala. 2 0 1 2 ) . On reman d, the trial court held a heari ng du ring whichPrit chett 's co unsel rais ed th e iss ue of the court 's failu re to discu ss wit h Pritc hett the minimum/ma ximum sente ncing range . The trial court again denie d Pritc hett' s mot ion t o wit hdrawhis guilt y ple a. Th e Cou rt of Crimi nal Appea l s a g ain affir med, by unpub lishe d memor andum , and P ritch ett p etiti oned this Court for certi orari revi ew. Discu ssion

411312 82

Expla ining its most recen t affir mance of the d enial of Pritc hett' s mot ion t o wit hdrawhis guilt y ple a, th e Cou rt of Crimi nal Appea ls state d in its unpub lishe d memor andum : "Prit chett filed in the circu it court a reque st to enter a guilt y ple a, wh ich h e andhis attor neys signe d, th at cl early state s the sente ncing range for murde r. Furth er, Prit c h e tt plead ed guilt y pursu ant to a negot iated agree ment and recei ved the s enten ce up on wh ich h e agr eed." Neit her o f the se re asons is pe rsuas ive. "What is at stake for an accus ed facin g d eath or impri sonme nt deman ds the utmos t solic itude of which court s are capab le in canva ssing the matte r with the accus ed to make sure he ha s a f ull u nders tandi ng ofwhat the plea conno tes a nd of its conse quenc e. " Boyki n v. Alaba ma, 395 U.S. 238, 243-4 4 ( 1 969). Drawi ng on Boyki n, this Court has held that " a defen dant, prior to plead in g guilt y, must be advis ed on the

recor d of the maximum and minimum poten tial punis hment for his crime ." Carte r v. State , 291 Ala. 83, 85, 277 So. 2d 896, 898 (1973 ) (emph asis added ). Altho ugh at one time the Cou r t of Crimi nal Appea ls noted that the s u bmiss ion of "a writt en expla natio n of right s signe d by appel l a n t was more than

511312 82

adequ ate to satis fy the requ ireme nts of Boyki n," Irela nd v. State , 47 Ala. App. 65, 6 6 , 250 So. 2d 602, 603 (Ala. Crim. App. 1971) , "a signe d Irela nd form is, alone , insuf ficie nt to estab lish the v olunt arine ss ofa pl ea." Waddl e v. State , 784 So. 2 d 367 , 370 (Ala . Cri m. Ap p. 20 00). Effec tive J a n uary 1, 1991, the Alaba ma Supre me Court adopt ed the Alaba ma Rules of Crimi nal Proce dure. Rule 14.4 of those Rule s rea ds as foll ows, in pe rtine nt pa rt: "In all o t her cases [i.e. , cases other than minor

misde meano r cases ], excep t where the defen dant is a corpo ratio n or an assoc iatio n, the court shall not accep t a plea of guilt y witho ut first addre ssing the defen dant perso nally in the prese nce of couns el in open court for the p urpos es of : "(1) Ascer taini ng that the defen dant has a full under stand ing of what a plea of guilt y means and its con s e q u ences , by infor ming the defen dant of and deter minin g tha t the defe ndant unde rstan ds:

"(i) The nature of t he charge and the mater ial eleme n t s of the offen se to which the p lea i s off ered; "(ii) The manda tory minimum penal ty, if any, and t h e maximum possi ble penal ty provi ded by law, inclu ding any enhan ced sente ncingprov ision s ... ." Rule 14.4( a), A la. R . Cri m. P. (emp hasis adde d). "The court may compl y with the requi remen ts of Rule 14.4( a) by deter minin g from a perso nal collo quy with the defen dant that the defen dant has read, o r has

611312 82

had read to the defen dant, and under stand s each item conta ined in Form C-44B , CR-51 , C R -52, or Form C-44A , as the c ase m ay be ." Rule 14.4( d), A la. R . Cri m. P. The trial court , thoug h it engag ed in a collo quy with Pritc hett, d i d not discu ss with him the maximum and minimum penal ties for the crime of murde r, nor did it menti on or discu ss the CR-51 (Irel and) form that is used in non-h abitu aloffen der felon y cases . The "Requ est for Guilt y Plea" f o rm 1 intro duced at the heari ng on Pritc hett' s motio n to with draw his g uiltyplea , andcite d by the C ourt of Cr imina l App eals, is not one of the forms ident ified in Rule 14.4 ( d ) , A l a . R. Crim. P., as accep table for use in conju nctio n with a guilt yplea collo quy. In any event , that form conta ined inco r rect infor matio n and thus misin forme d Pritc hett that he fa c ed a minimum sente nce of 10 years if convi cted, rath e r t h a n a minimum se ntenc e of 20 ye ars. For a defen dant' s decis ion to plead guilt y to be intel ligen t and volun tary, the defen dant must know the corre ct

The CR-51 form intro duced into evide nce at the hear i n g 1 on Pritc hett' s motio n to withd raw his guilt y plea was a blank form with no pa rticu lariz ed in forma tion writt en onit a nd no signa tures . Accor ding to the Court of Crimi n al Appea ls, the recor d of Pritc hett' s previ ous appea l conta ins an Irela nd form indic atingthat the minimum se ntenc e formurd er is 10 y ears. 711312 82

minimum sente nce he or she will face by plead ing guilt y. "When

an accus ed who plead s guilt y does so on the basis of misin forma tion as to the range of p unish ment the g uiltyplea is in volun tary. " Han dley v. St ate, 686 S o. 2d540, 541 (Ala. C r i m . App. 1996) . Furth ermor e, the trial judge did not perso nally addre ss Pritc hett regar ding eithe r the "Requ est for Guilt y Plea" form or Form CR-51 as Rule 14.4( d) requi res. The Commi ttee Comme nts t o Rul e 14. 4 sta te:

"Sect ion (d) is inclu ded to accommodat e the curre nt Alaba ma pract ice of infor ming the defen dant of his right s throu gh a form simil ar to that appro ve d i n Irela nd v. State , 47 Ala. App. 65, 250 So. 2d 602 (1971 ), and s ubseq uent cases . The rule, howev er, speci fical ly retai ns the requi remen t that the trial judge ... speci fical ly qu e s tion the defen dant conce rning the infor matio n conta ined in each item. Thus, in every case , the recor d shoul d aff i r m a tivel y show a collo quy betwe en the trial judge and the defen dant conce rning all such matte rs.

... This rule requi res such a colloquy and requi res that speci f i c inqui ry be made with regar d to the right s set out in Ru le 14 .4(a) (1) a nd (2 )." (Emph asis added .) The Court of Crimi nal Appea ls' holdi ng in its unpub lishe d

memor andum in this case that the "Requ est for Guilt y P l e a" form, stand ing alone , satis fied the requi remen t that the plea be vo lunta ry wa s neg ated as lo ng ag o as 1973 in Ca rter. Rule 14.4, in effec t since 1991, embod ies the pri n c i p le that

811312 82

witho ut a collo quy t o rev iew a true Irel and f orm s tatin g all the right s the defen dant is forgo ing by plead ing guil t y , a guilt y plea is not volun tary. Furth ermor e, the unsup p o r t ed state ment of the Court of Crimi na l Ap p eals that the trial court did not have to infor m Pritc het t o f the minimum and maximum se ntenc es be cause he h ad ag reed to a negot iatedplea finds no recog nitio n in the Alaba m a Ru l es of Crimi nal Proce dure or in prio r cas es. S urelythe infor matio n tha t the

m i nimum sente nce, if the defen dant is found guilt y, i s 2 0 years , as oppos ed to 10 years , is neces sary for a defen dant to make a knowi ng and intel ligen t decis ion eithe r to plead guilt y or to go t o tri al. 2 Recen tly the Court of C r i m inal Appea ls recog nized this princ iple in a case Pritc hett cites frequ ently in his petit ion for certi orari revie w. See Willi ams v. State , [Ms. CR-13 -0436 , May 2, 2014] ___ So. 3d

___ ( A l a . C r im. App. 2014) (hold ing

The Court of Crimi nal Appea ls also argue d that Pritc hett 2 did n ot ob ject to th e tri al co urt's fail ure t o inf orm h im of the firea rm enhan cemen t. This objec tion, howev er, is inclu ded in Pr itche tt's objec tion to th e fai lure to in form him o f the corre ct sente ncing range . See Ander son v. Stat e , 668 So. 2d 159, 159 (Ala. Crim. App. 1995) (equa ting a failu re to infor m a defen dant of a sente n c i n g enhan cemen t with a failu re to infor m him of "the corr e c t minimum and maximum possi ble sente nces he co uld r eceiv e"). 911312 82

that a guilt y plea was invol untar y where the defen dant was not infor med that a firea rm enhan cemen t would incre ase the minimum sente nce by 10 years ). Becau s e infor ming Pritc hett of the

m a ximum and minimum possi ble sente nces was "an absol ut e const ituti onal prere quisi te to acce ptanc e of a gui lty p lea," Carte r, 291 A la. at 85, 277 So. 2d at 897, I belie ve Pritc hett' s pet ition has merit . "Th e lawin A labam a is clear that the trial court 's failu re to corre ctly advis e a defen dant of the minimum and maximum sente nces befor e accep ting h is guilt y plea rende rs that guilt y plea invol untar y." White v. State , 888 So. 2d 1288, 1290 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004) . That the sente nce impos ed (23 years ) was withi n the l egal range does not contr ol. "It does not matte r that his sente nce was legal . 'The accus ed's right to know the possi ble sente nce he faces is absol ute.' " Bozem an v. State , 686 So. 2d 556, 559 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996) (quot ing Henry v. State , 639 So. 2d 583, 584 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994 )). Concl usion I would grant Pritc hett' s petit ion for a wr it of certi orari (1) to exami ne the appar ent confl ict betwe en the Court of Crimi nal Appea ls' decis ion in this case and p r i or

1011312 82

decis ions and (2) to maint ain unifo rmity in our cases apply ing Rule 14.4.

11