Case Name: State of New Hampshire v. Donald A. Allard
Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire
Decision Date: 1976-04-30
Citations: 116 N.H. 240
Docket Number: No. 7311
Parties: State of New Hampshire v. Donald A. Allard
Judges: Grimes, J., dissented; the others concurred.
Reporter: New Hampshire Reports
Volume: 116
Pages: 240–246

Head Matter:
Hillsborough
No. 7311
State of New Hampshire v. Donald A. Allard
April 30, 1976
Warren B. Rudman, attorney general, and Richard B. McNamara, attorney (Mr. McNamara orally), for the State.
Eleanor S. Krasnow, by brief and orally, for the defendant.

Opinion:
Griffith, J.
On February 13, 1974, the defendant, who was represented by counsel, pleaded guilty to burglary of a dwelling house of another in the nighttime and was sentenced to not more than five nor less than three years in prison by the Trial Court, Cann, J. After serving part of his sentence defendant through new counsel moved to withdraw his guilty plea. This motion was grounded on two main points; (1) that it does not affirmatively appear that he understood what the maximum and minimum penalties were, and (2) that he did not understand that to constitute the crime to which he pleaded guilty the intent to steal must precede the entry. After hearing, the Trial Court, Cann, J., denied the motion and reserved and transferred the defendant's exception. There was no plea bargain in this case.
The defendant and his attorney signed an acknowledgement of rights which contains among other matters, a statement that the defendant has discussed the plea with his attorney and "knows the full meaning of this indictment." The defendant in this document further acknowledges that his attorney, with whom he is satisfied, has advised him of the penalties that the court can impose for the crime to which he has pleaded guilty. In response to questions from the trial court at the time of sentence the defendant agreed that he had gone over the "acknowledgment of rights" with his attorney and fully understood it and that he was guilty and so was pleading guilty. He further answered in the affirmative to questions of the court designed to insure that he understood the court was not bound on sentencing by either the prosecution or defense counsel's recommendations.
It is clear from the record of defendant's arraignment and plea that both in the acknowledgment of rights which he signed and his answers to the questions propounded by the trial court he specifi cally waived the constitutional rights required by Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969). Defendant's claims focus on the failure of the | trial court to supplement advice of counsel by informing defendant of the penalty for his crime and the full meaning of the indictment.
Our State constitution provides counsel in cases not required by the Federal Constitution. N.H. Const, pt. I, art. 15; cf. Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972). Both federal and State courts place great emphasis upon the necessity of counsel at all stages of a criminal prosecution. New cases can be found faulting counsel in the trial of a case (See, e.g., Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 (1970)), but the ritual of requiring the court to reexamine the areas already covered by counsel appears to assume the incompetency of counsel to advise a defendant where the plea is guilty. In addition to requiring a signed statement from the defendant that his counsel has properly advised him, the court would be required to question the defendant in detail to determine whether counsel's advice was correct. No such requirement appears to be mandated by Supreme Court decisions (See Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970)) and in our opinion, it denigrates the role of counsel.
The issue on appeal from the denial of a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty is whether the plea was voluntarily and understanding^ entered into by the defendant. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969). Tested by this standard, the plea in this case must stand. While the value to the defendant of knowing the maximum penalty which he might have received, but did not, escapes us, in any event he acknowledged that his counsel advised him of the penalties. In this respect, the case differs from State v. Farris, 114 N.H. 355, 320 A.2d 642 (1974), a plea-bargaining case where it appeared there was no understanding of the possible penalties since the plea-bargained sentence of a six-month minimum could not be imposed because of a longer statutory minimum.
The defendant appears to fault trial counsel for not recognizing that defendant had a valid defense to burglary based upon a lack of intent to steal when he broke and entered. Defendant claimed that he was a former tenant of the house he broke into and had appropriated to his use some Christmas tree ornaments he found in the basement; that he forgot to take them with him when he moved; and that his breaking into the house in the nighttime in October of 1973 was to retrieve the ornaments and that the theft of money was an afterthought. Accordingly, defendant asserts he would only have been guilty of theft since he lacked the requisite intent for burglary.
"That a guilty plea must be intelligently made is not a requirement that all advice offered by the defendant's lawyer withstand retrospective examination in a post-conviction hearing." McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 770 (1970); Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970); North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).
Defendant's trial counsel is well known to the court as a competent attorney experienced in the defense of criminal cases. He used defendant's explanation in his argument for reduction of sentence in an apparent judgment that this was the only way it might benefit the defendant. Pragmatically, we cannot fault trial counsel for thinking that an explanation of breaking and entering in the nighttime in October to retrieve Christmas decorations would have little chance of acceptance coming from a defendant of pristine character and none at all from this defendant with his five previous burglary convictions. Even in retrospect, this judgment of counsel appears logical and realistic. See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970); U.S. ex rel. Burke v. Erickson, 315 F. Supp. 476 (D.S.D. 1970).
Exception overruled.
Grimes, J., dissented; the others concurred.