I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 7 - CT - 0 0 7 4 0 - S CT J OH N ANTHON Y M

AGYAR
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI DA TE OF J UD GM ENT: 04/ 05/ 2007 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. W . ASH LEY H I NES COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: W ASHI NGTON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: J AM ES LE E KELLY ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLEE: DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y: OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY: LAURA HOG AN TEDDER J OY CE I . CH I LES NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - POST- CO NV I CTI ON RELI EF D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D – 08/ 13/ 2009 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. DI CK I NSON, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. J ohn A nthony M agyarcl ai m s that , pr i ort o pl eadi ng gui l ty t o t he cri m e of s exual b att ery , h e w as n o t t o ld h e w o u ld b e re q u ir ed to reg ist er a s a se x o ffen d er. T h e tri al co u rt
s um m ar i l y di s m i s s ed hi s m ot i on f orpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef w i thouta hea r i ng. T he C our tof Ap p e a l s a f

f i r me d th a td i s mi s s a l , we g r a n t e d c e r t i o r a r i , a n d we n o w a f f i r m. B AC KGR OU ND F AC T S AN D P RO CE E DI NG S ¶2. A f

t erJohn A nthony M agyarw as i ndi ct ed by a W as hi ngt on C ounty gra nd j ury forone co un tof s e xu a l ba t t e r y, he f

i l e d a “ pe t i t i on t o e nt e rpl e a of gu i l ty. ” H i s pl e a pet i t i on

### 2

di s cl os ed the maxi m um and mi ni m um penal t i es f orthe cr i m e of

s exual batt ery, butdi d not di s cl os e thathe w oul d be r equi r ed t o re gi s t eras a s ex of f ender , and the tr i al j udge di d not
m ent i on i tdur i ng the pl ea c ol l oquy. T he t r i al j udge ac cept ed M agyar ’ s gui l ty pl ea a nd
o rde red a p re-sen tenc e inv esti g ati o n , foll o w ing w h ich h e se n tenc ed M ag y ar to tw en ty y ea rs i n pr i s on, w i th t en yea r s s us pended, f ol l ow ed by f

i ve yea r s s upervi s ed pr obat i on. A d d it ion all y , the ju d g e o rde red M ag y ar to reg ist er a s a se x o ffen d er. ¶ 3 . M a g y a r file d a m o tio n fo r p o st-c o n v ictio n re lie f in th e tr ial c o u rt, as se rtin g th a t h is pl ea a nd s ent ence s houl d be s etas i de f orvar i ous re as ons , i ncl udi ng t hathi s gui l ty pl ea w as notf r eel y, vol unt ar i l y and i nt el l i gent l y m ade, and t hatnei thert he t r i al j udge norhi s att or ney info rm ed h im that h e w o u ld b e re q u ir ed to reg ist er a s a se x o ffen d er. ¶4. A f

t erthe tr i al courts um m ar i l y deni ed hi s m ot i on w i thouta hear i ng, M agyarf i l ed a “m oti on t o recon si der m oti on fo r p o st- co nv i ct i on rel i ef, ” w hich the tr i al cou rttreat ed as a R u le 6 0 m o tio n a n d d e n ie d . M a g y a r a p p e a le d . T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls a ff ir m e d . Magyarv. S ta te , N o. 2007- C A
- 00740, 2008 W L 4308220 ( M i s s C t . A pp. Sept . 23, 2008) . A l though
w e f i nd no err ori n the C ourtof A ppeal s ’ opi ni on ordi s pos i t i on of thi s cas e, w e gr ant ed
cert i or ar i t o a ddr es s the s t atut ory m andat e thattr i al j udges i nf or m cr i m i nal def

endant s – pr i or to ac ce p ti n g their gu il ty p leas – o f th e re q u ir em en t t o reg ist er a s a se x o ffen d er. A N A L Y S IS ¶ 5 . In h is p e tit io n fo r p o st-c o n v ictio n relie f, M a g y a r as se rte d , in teralia , th a t he s h o u ld h a v e b e e n a l l o we d t o wi th d r a w h i s g u i l ty p l e a b e c a u s e th e tr i a l c o u r td i d n o ti n f o r m h i m, pr i ort o acc ept i ng hi s gui l ty pl ea, thathe w oul d be r equi r ed t o r egi s t eras a s ex of f ender . T he trial c o u rt d e n ie d M a y g a r’s p e tit io n w ith o u t a h e a rin g . B e c a u se th e q u e stio n p re se n ted isSe e Mi ss. Co deAnn. §§ 45 -33 -25 & -3 1 (Rev . 2 00 4). 1 

### 3 le g a l, r a th e r th a n f

a c tu a l, w e a n a ly z e it d e n o v o . B ro w n v. S ta te , 73 1 S o. 2d 59 5, 59 8 (M i ss. 1 9 9 9 ). Mis s . C ode Ann. § 45- 33- 39 ¶ 6 . S e c t i o n 4 5 - 3 3
- 3 9 ( 1 ) r e q u i r e s a tr i a l j u d g e –p r i o rt o a c c e p t i n g a g u i l ty p l e a f r o m a def endantchar ged w i t h a sex cri m e – t o pr ovi de the def endantw r i t t en not i f

i cat i on of

t he 1
r egi s tr at i on requi r ementand obt ai n “a w r i t t en ac know l edgmentof r ece i pt ” of

the w r i t t en n o tifica tio n . S p e c ifica lly , the sta tu te p ro v id e s, in p a rt: T he courts hal l pr ovi de w r i t t en not i fi cat i on to a ny def endantchar ged w i th a s ex of f ens e as def

i ned by thi s chapt erof the r egi s tr at i on r equi r ement s of S e c tio n s 4 5 -3 3 -2 5 a n d 4 5 -3 3 -3 1 . S u c h n o tice sh a ll b e in c lu d e d o n a n y g u ilty pl ea f or m s and j udgm entan d sent ence f or m s pr ovi ded t o the def endant . T he courts hal l obt ai n a w r i t t en ac know l edgmentof r ece i pton eac h occa s i on. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 4 5 -33 -39 (1) (R ev . 2 0 0 4 ). ¶7. I ts houl d come as no s urpr i s e thatf ew s t at es have st atut es s i m i l art o Sect i on 45- 33- 39( 1) . A bas i c t enetof

A m er i can gove rnm enti s j udi ci al i ndepende nce, and eve ry s t at e has a j udi ci al br anch of

governm ents epar at e fr om it s l egi s l at i ve br anch. W e hol d f i r m t o t he pr i nci pl e thatM i s si ssi ppi ’ s l egi s l at i ve br anch of governm entm ay not , thr ough pr ocedur al le g is la tio n , c o n tr o l t h e f u n c tio n o f t h e ju d ic ia ry . See M i s s . C ons t . art . 1, § 1 ( “The pow er s of the go vernm ent of the S t at e of M i ssi ssi pp i s hall be divi ded i nto three di st i nct departm ents , and ea ch of

them conf

i ded t o a s epar at e m agi s tr acy, t o- w i t : thos e w hi ch ar e l egi s l at i ve t o one, th o se w h ich a re ju d icia l to an o th e r, an d th o se w h ich a re e x e c u tiv e to a n o th e r.”) ; M iss . C o n st. art . 1, § 2 ( “N o per s on orcol l ect i on of per s ons , bei ng one orbel ongi ng t o one of these dep artm ents , shal l exerci se any p ow er pr op erly b elong i ng t o either of the o thers. ”); M i ss.Our deci sion today is no indicati on that we disappr ove of the Legislature’s ide a. To the 2 contrary, the matter has been referred to our rules committee which has taken the provisions of the statute under advisement and will submit it to the normal process ass ociated with the enactment of rules affecting the judiciary. 

### 4 C ons t . art . 6, § 144 (“ T he j udi ci al pow erof the St at e s hal l be ves t ed i n a Supr eme C our tand
su ch o ther c o u rt s as a re p rov ided for in this C o n sti tuti o n . ”). Stated a n o ther w ay , this C o u rt cannot– cons i s t entw i th the M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i tut i on – r el i nqui s h t o the Legi s l atur e the d u ties a n d p o w e rs c o n stitu tio n a lly im p o se d u p o n th e S u p re m e C o u rt. ¶8. I ndeed, ours ubs ervi ence t o l egi s l at i on thatm andat es w hatourtr i al j udges m us ts ay t o a def endanti n a courtr oom d uri ng a pl ea he ar i ng w oul d be t ant amount t o bot h an abdi cat i on of

ourj udi ci al duty, as w el l as t aci tappr oval of l egis l at i ve usurpat i on of the j udi ci al pr er ogat i ve. T hus , w e hol d t oday thatM i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 45- 33- 3 9 (1 ) c o n fe rs n o rig h t o n a c rim in a l d e fe n d a n t c h a rg e d w ith a se x c rim e a n d im p o se s n o d u ty on ourtr i al j udges . A l though w e f i nd thata tr i al j udge i s notr equi r ed, pr i ort o acc ept i ng a 2 gui l ty pl ea, t o i nf

or m a de f

endantof the s ex of

f enderr egi s tr at i on l aw s , w e m us ts t i l l deci de
w h ethe r th e re g istrati o n req u ir em e n t is a “ m aterial ” c o n seq u en ce o f a g u il ty p lea, or a “col l at er al ” cons equenc e onl y. Mat er i aland col lat er alcons equenc es ¶9 . T h e d ec isi o n to p lead g u il ty h as c o n seq u en ce s. S o m e a re m aterial , a n d s o m e a re c o llate ra l. M a ter ial c o n se q u e n c e s a re tho se o f w h ich a d e fe n d a n t m u st b e a w a re in o rd e r to know i ngl y and i nt el l i gent l y w ai ve the numer ous s ubs t ant i ve and pr ocedur al r i ght s guar ant eed by the cons t i tut i on t o a def endanti n a cr i m i nal cas e. A def endantm us tbe f

ul l y i nf or m ed ofAlthough Missi ssippi has no case direct ly on point, we f ind persuasive the reasoning of our 3 sisterstate, Alabama. Se e Ro bin so n v . S tat e , 730 So. 2d 25 2, 254 (Ala. Crim. App. 1998) (“‘An accus ed is e nti tle d toinf

ormati on co nc erningthedire ct co ns eq ue nc es o f his p lea . H e is no t entitled to inf ormati on co nc erningallco llateral ef fe cts , o r f utu re c ontin ge nc ies that might arise .’” ) (inte rnal citati ons omitted). See also N o ll ett ev . S ta te , 46 P .3 d 87, 89 (Nev. 2002) ( [T]he totality of the circum stanc es m

us t de m on stratethat a def en dant plead ed

guilty w ithkn ow ledgeof thedirect co ns eq ue nc es o f his p lea

. . . Bec au se c oll ate ralco ns eq ue nc es o f a

criminal co nv iction

areof ten limitl ess , unf

ore see ab le o r perso na l to th e de fend ant, req uiringan advis em ent w ithre sp ect to e ve ry co nc eiv ab le c oll ate ralcon seq ue nc e ‘w ould im

po se u po n th e trialco urt

anim po ssible , unw arranted an d unn ece ssary b urden .’” ) (internal ci tation s o mitt ed). Crimes which disqualify a person as an electorare murder, rape, bri bery, th eft, ars on, 4 ob taining mon eyor g oo ds un de r f als e pre ten se, p erj ury , fo rgery, em be zzl em ent an d b igamy. Mis s. Const. art. 12, § 241. Se e a lso Mis s. Co deAnn. § 2 3-1 5-1 9 (Rev . 2 00 7). 

### 5 the m aterial – o r di rect– co nsequ ences p ri or t o en t eri ng a plea of gui l ty; conve rs el y, t here i s no requ i rem ent that a defendan tbe inf orm ed o f the co l l at eral con sequen ces. 3 ¶10. Fori ns t ance , upon convi ct i on of ce r t ai n cr i m es , a per s on l os es the pr i vi l ege t o vot e. 4 A n d su p e rv ise d p ro b a tio n – w h ich a c c o m p a n ie s m o st fe lo n y se n ten c e s – w ill re su lt i n s ubs t ant i al per s onal r es tr i ct i ons a nd r eport i ng r equi r ement s . Fur therm or e, a nd more on poi nt here, con vict i on of a f

el on y carr i es w i th ita cert ain s o ciet al st i gm a. S om e organ i zat i on s, empl oyer s , and cl ubs r es tr i ctm ember s hi p and empl oym entt o per s ons w ho have neve rbeen convi ct ed of

a f el ony. O ursys t em of

j us t i ce does notexpect– and the C ons t i tut i on does not
r equi r e – ourtr i al j udges t o i nf or m def endant s of

thes e orothercol l at er al cons equenc es of pl eadi ng gui l ty t o a f

el ony. ¶11. W e dec i de t oday, as an i s s ue of f i r s ti m pr es s i on i n M i s s i s s i ppi , w hethert he
re q u ire m e n t to re g iste r a s a se x o ff e n d e r is a m a ter ial o r c o llate ra l co n se q u e n c e o f a g u ilty p lea . A fte r d u e c o n sid e ra tio n , w e fin d th a t th e re q u ire m e n t to re g iste r a s a se x o ffe n d e r is a col l at er al cons equenc e of a gui l ty pl ea, and the tr i al courtw i l l notbe puti n err orf orf ai l i ngSee, e.g., Ro bin so n v . S tat e , 7 30 So . 2 d 2 52 , 2 54 (A la. Crim. App. 19 98 ) (s exof fe nd er 5 reg istration

is a co llateral c on seq

ue nc e o f a guilty pl ea) ; State v. Y oung , 5 42 P. 2d

20 , 2 2 (Ariz . 19 75 ) (s am e); People v. Montaine , 7 P. 3d 10 65 , 1 06 7 (C olo . C t. A

pp . 1 99 9) ( same); St

ate v. Sc ott, 20 03 De l. S up er. 20 03 WL 2 12 04 46 9 at *1 (D el. Su pe r. C t. May 19 , 20 03 ) (s am e); State v. Partl ow , 84 0 S o. 2d

10 40 , 1 04 3-4 4 (F la. 20 03 ) (s am e); Foov. S tat e, 1 02 P .3 d 34 6, 35 8 (H aw . 2 00 4) ( same); Ra y v. St ate , 9 82 P. 2d

93 1, 93 5 (I daho 19 99 ) (s am e); Peop le v . T aylor , 56 1 N .E .2 d 393, 39 3 (I ll. App. Ct. 1990) (registration r equirement is not penal in nature, and thus not part of the sentencing pro ced ure ); State v. Jefferson, 759 N.W .2d 3 (Table), 2008 WL 4531454 at *3 (Iowa App. Oct. 1, 20 08 ) ( sexo ff

en der reg istration

is a c oll ate ralc on seq

ue nc e o f a

guilty p lea); State v. Legg , 13 P.3d 35 5, 35 8 (Kan . Ct . App. 20 00 ) (s am e); Ca rp en ter v. Co mmo nwea lth , 2 31 S. W .3 d 1 34 , 1 37 (K y. Ct . App. 2007) (same); C

o mm o n wea lt

h v . S h in dell, 8 27 N. E. 2d

23 6, 23 8 (M ass . App . C t. 2 00 5) ( same); In re Lyons , 2 00 0 WL 333 89 82 4 at *1 (Mi ch . App . D ec. 19 , 2 00 0) ( same); Ramse y v. St ate , 182 S. W .3 d 6 55 , 6 59 (M o. C t. App. 20 05 ) (s am e); State v. Torres, 574 N.W .2d 153, 155 (Neb. 1998) (re gis tratio n re quire m ents are s ep arate and co llateral t o anysexua l of fens e whic h th e ac t af

fects); No llette v . S tat e , 46 P. 3d 87 , 9 0 (N ev . 2 00 2) ( sexof fend er reg ist

ration is a co llateral c on seq

ue nc e of a guilty p lea); Do e v. Po rit z , 66 2 A. 2d

36 7, 40 6 n .1 8 (N .J . 1 99 5) ( same); St ate v. Mo ore , 86 P.3d 63 5, 643 (N.M. Ct. App. 20 04 ) (s am e) Peop le v . C lar k , 704 N.Y.S.2d 149, 151 (N.Y. A pp. Div. 20 00 ) (s am e); Da ven

po rt v . S tat e , 62 0 N. W .2 d 16 4, 166 (N .D . 2 00 0) ( same); State v. Omiec inski, 20 09 WL 6 26 11 4 at *4(O hioApp. March12 , 2 00 9)( same); Ro drigu ez- Mo ren o v . S tat e, 145 P.3d 25 6, 25 9 (O r. C t. A

pp . 2 00 6) ( same); Co mmo nwea lth v. Leidi g , 956 A.2 d 399, 406 (Pa. 2008) (sam e); Wil

liams v . S tat e , 66 2 S. E. 2d

615 , 6 18 (S .C . C t. A

pp . 2 00 8) ( same); St

ate v. Ti mperle y , 599 N. W .2 d 8 66 , 8 69 (S .D . 1 99 9) ( same); Wa rd v. Stat e , 2009 WL 113236 at *9, (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan uary 14 , 20 09 ) (s am e); St

ate v. Wa rd, 86 9 P. 2d

106 2, 107 6 (Wash . 1 99 4) ( same); St ate v. Bo lli g , 60 5 N. W .2 d 19 9, 2 06 (Wis. 2 00 0) (th e duty to reg ist er is a co llateral c on seq ue nc e o f a

guilty p lea , be cau se i t do es n ot c on sti tut e p un ishm ent); Jo hn son v. St ate , 922 P.2d 1384, 1387 (Wyo. 1996) (trialco urt

co mmitt ed

n o error byf

ail ingtoa dv isea d ef

en dant a bo ut t hereg istration

req uirem ent). 

### 6 t o advi s e M aygarof

the r egi s tr at i on r equi r ement s be f or e acc ept i ng hi s gui l ty pl ea. A l though
w e d o n o t re c o g n iz e th e law o f o th e r sta tes a s c o n tro lli n g p re c e d e n t, ou r d e c isio n to d a y is
neverthel es s ai ded by the vi ew poi ntof vi r tual l y every otherj ur i s di ct i on t o addr es s t he ques t i on. 5 CO NC L US I ON ¶12. W e hol d t oday thatj udi ci al rul es – s uch as the rul es o f evi dence , ci vi l pr ocedur e, crim inal p roc ed u re, an d p rofe ssion al co n d u ct – n eith er c o m e fro m the L eg isl ature n o r req u ir e l egi s l at i ve appr oval . A ccor di ngl y, w e hol d thatSect i on 45- 33- 39( 1) conf er s no pr ocedur al ri gh ton a defend ant i n a cri m i nal case and im po ses no judici al du ty o n a tr i al j ud ge. W e al so

### 7

hol d thatthe duty t o r egi s t eras a s ex of f enderi s a col l at er al co nseque nce of a gui l ty pl ea. A l l otheras pect s of

t he dec i s i on of

the C our tof

A ppeal s i n thi s m att erar e adopt ed her ei n. A c c o rd in g ly , w e a ffirm th e ju d g m e n ts o f th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls a n d th e W a sh in g to n C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rt. ¶ 1 3 . AFF I RM ED . W A L L E R , C .J ., C A R L S O N , P .J ., R A N D O L P H , L A M A R A N D P I E R C E , J J ., C O N C U R . G R A V E S , P .J ., C O N C U R S I N R E S U L T O N L Y . K I T C H E N S , J ., C O N C U R S W I T H S E P A R A T E W R I T T E N O P I N I O N J O I N E D B Y W A L L E R , C .J ., CA RL S ON , P . J . , DI CK I NS ON , L AMAR AN D P I E RC E , J J . CHA ND L E R, J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG . KI T CH E NS , J US T I CE , CO NC UR RI NG : ¶14. I agr ee w i th the maj or i ty’ s deci s i on to aff i r m the di s m i s s al of

M agyar ’ s m ot i on f

or p o st-c o n v ictio n re lief a n d its c o n c lu sio n th a t th e re g istra tio n re q u ire m e n t in c id e n tal to
c o n v ictio n a s a se x o ffe n d e r is a c o llate ra l, rath e r th a n d ire c t, co n se q u e n c e o f a v a lid g u ilty plea. I w ri t e separat el y, ho w ever, t o clar i fy the d i st i ncti on betw een these ef fect s. ¶ 1 5 . T o b e su re , the n o tio n s o f d ire c t an d co llate ra l co n se q u e n c e s a re a m o rp h o u s c o n c e p ts thatel ude s i m pl e def

i ni t i on. N everthel es s , the cons i der abl e att ent i on gi ven t o the s ubj ectby
ours i s t erj ur i s di ct i ons s ugges t s t hat t his b ody of l aw af f or ds no s pace t o a mi ddl e gr ound;
cons equenc es t o a pl ea of gui l ty a r e ei therdi r ectorcol l at er al . T her ef or e, w hen conf

r ont ed by thi s i s s ue i n the f

utur e, t he j udges of

thi s s t at e mustdeci de upon w hi ch s i de of the di vi di ng l i ne a g i ven con sequen ce fal l s. ¶16. T oday, w e hol d cor r ect l y t hatpost - r el eas e r egi s tr at i on as a s ex of f enderi s a col l at er al
c o n s e q u e n c e to a n a d m is s io n o f g u ilt, a s h a v e s e v e ra l o th e r s ta te s . See e
. g. , Co m m o n w e a lth
v. L e idig , 5 9 8 P a . 2 1 1 , 9 5 6 A .2 d 3 9 9 (2 0 0 8 ); S tate v. W ard , 123 W as h. 2d 488, 869 P. 2d

### 8

1 0 6 2 (1 9 9 4 ). See al

s o B e ss e y v. S ta te , 2 3 9 S. W . 3 d 8 0 9 ( Te x . Cr i m. A pp . 2 0 0 7 ) . To
c o n c lu d e th a t th e in sta n t ca se fa lls to th e c o llate ra l sid e o f th e fin e lin e in q u e stio n d o e s n o t, of cour s e, s ett l e the l argerquest i on of w her e, exac t l y, thatl i ne l i es . I n m y vi ew , “[ t ] he di s t i nct i on bet w een ‘ di r ect ’ and ‘c ol l at er al ’ conse quence s of a pl ea, w hi l e s om et i m es s haded i n the r el evantdeci s i ons , turns on w hetherthe r es ul tr epr es ent s a de f i ni t e, i m m edi at e and la rg e ly a u to m a tic e ff

e c t o n th e r a n g e o f th e d e fe n d a n t’ s p u n is h m e n t.” G eor ge v. B lack , 732 F. 2d 108, 110 ( 8th C i r . 1984) ( quot i ng C uthre l l v. D ir ector , 4 7 5 F . 2 d 1 3 6 4 , 1 3 6 6 (4 th C ir . 1 9 7 3 ), cer t . deni ed , 414 U . S. 1005, 94 S. C t . 362, 38 L . E d. 2d 241 (1973) ) . F orexampl e, i n C u th re ll , the Four th Ci r cui tCourtof A ppeal s he l d thata def endanthad know i ngl y pl ed gui l ty, notw i ths t andi ng the tr i al court ’ s f ai l ur e t o advi s e hi m t hathe m i ghtl os e hi s acc rued “good t i m e” c r edi tper i od. T hi s w as s o, the panel r eas oned, be caus e “w hi l e the l os s w [ oul d] i ncr eas e the per i od of

hi s a ctual c onf

i nement , i t[ w as ] not‘ a def i ni t e, pr act i cal cons equenc e of the pl ea’ but[ w as ] di s cr et i onary w i th the pr i s on author i t i es , ” and ther ef or e w as a col l at er al
cons equenc e. 475 F. 2d at1366 ( quot i ng Hutchis on v. U nited States , 450 F. 2d 930, 931 ( 10th C i r . 1971) ) . O n the otherhand, “[ u] nderthi s s t andar d, di r ectcons equenc es i ncl ude a
m andat ory s peci al par ol e t erm , i nel i gi bi l i ty f orpar ol e, and the maxi m um puni s hm ent pr ovi ded by l aw . ” T

o rr e y v. E ste lle , 8 4 2 F . 2 d 2 3 4 , 2 3 6 (9th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ). ¶17. T he st andar d enunci at ed by the C u th re ll Courti s f

ol l owed by a tl eas tt hr ee ot her
c irc u its, fo r a to tal o f n o few e r th a n se v e n o f th e tw e lv e c irc u its in a g re e m e n t o n th is p o in t. V irs n iek s v . Sm ith , 5 2 1 F .3 d 7 0 7 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 8 ); S tee le v. Mur phy , 3 6 5 F . 3 d 1 4 (1st C ir . 2 0 0 4 ); U nited States v. U

. S. C urr ency in the A m ount of $228, 536. 00 , 89 5 F . 2 d 90 8 (2d C ir . 1 9 9 0 ). See als o R edw in e v. Zu ckert , 3 1 7 F . 2 d 3 3 6 (D . C . C ir . 1 9 6 3 ). A s I read tod ay ’sOb vio us ly, if a g iven c on seq

ue nc e o f a guilty ple a leave s do ub t as to wh eth er i t is co llateral 6 or directin nature, the trial judge’s most prudent rout e is to advi se the defendant thereof. 

### 9 m aj ori ty o p i nion, w e hav e cho sen t o ad here t o thi s st and ard. W hetherpo st -r el ease regi strat i o n is a co l l at eral or di rectcon sequen ce of a gu i l ty p l ea i s, adm i t t edly, a cl ose ques t i on; i tcert ai nl y i s def i ni t e and a ut om at i c. H ow ever , i ti s notas im m ediat e and di r ect
a r es ul tas , f

orexampl e, a t erm of

i m pr i s onm entorthe i m pos i t i on of a f i ne. T he M i s s i s s i ppi C our tof A ppeal s i m pli ci t l y adher ed t o thi s r eas oni ng i n 2005 w hen i taf f i r m ed the
c o n v ictio n , p u rsu a n t to a p lea o f g u ilty , o f a d e fe n d a n t w h o m th e trial ju d g e e x p licitly
a d v is e d w a s w a iv in g h is ri g h t to d ir e c t a p p e a l. S y k e s v . S ta te , 8 9 5 S o . 2 d 1 9 1, 19 5 (M i ss. C t . A pp. 2005) . T he r es ul t i ng l os s of the r i ghtt o appea l cert ai nl y w as def i ni t e, i m m edi at e, a n d a u to m a tic; b u t b e c a u se th e trial ju d g e a d v ise d th e d e fe n d a n t o n th e re c o rd o f th is
cons equenc e, the appe l l at e courtr i ght l y det erm i ned thatthe def endantknow i ngl y had pl ed g u ilty . I d. See al s o Y o u n gv. S ta te , 7 9 7 S o . 2 d 2 3 9 , 2 4 5 -46 (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 1 ). ¶18. T he court ’ s j udgm enti n Sykes w as corr ectf orpr eci s el y the s ame r eas on thatI concur i n t oday’ s deci s i on: w her e a c ons equenc e of a val i d gui l ty pl ea i s def i ni t e, i m m edi at e, and l ar gel y aut om at i c, thatcons equenc e i s di r ect , r atherthan col l at er al ; and w her e a de f endant
s eeki ng t o pl ead gui l ty has been a dvi s ed of the di r ectconse quence s of thatdeci s i on, thatpl ea obvi ous l y i s m ade know i ngl y. I n cas es s uch as the one be f or e us t oday, w hen a gui l ty pl ea r es ul t s i n cons equenc es t hatdo notm eetthatthr ee- pr onged des cr i pt i on, a def endanti s not ent i t l ed t o j udi ci al admoni t i on. 6 ¶19. B eca us e thi s C ourt i m pl i ci t l y f ol l ow s that path i n r eac hi ng t oday’ s corr ectdeci s i on, I concurw i th the maj or i ty opi ni on.

### 10

W A L L E R , C .J ., C A R L S O N , P .J ., D I C K I N S O N , L A M A R A N D P I E R C E , J J ., J O I N T H I S O P I N I O N .