Case Name: STATE of Louisiana v. Dobie Gillis WILLIAMS
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1981-06-22
Citations: 400 So. 2d 868
Docket Number: No. 80-K-2345
Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. Dobie Gillis WILLIAMS.
Judges: MARCUS and BLANCHE, JJ., dissent and assign reasons.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 400
Pages: 868–874

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana v. Dobie Gillis WILLIAMS.
No. 80-K-2345.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
June 22, 1981.
Ted Brett Brunson, Public Defender Program, Many, for defendant-relator.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., James L. Davis, Dist. Atty., Herman Lawson, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-respondent.

Opinion:
WATSON, Justice.
In this post conviction proceeding, a writ was granted to review the trial court's refusal to set aside defendant's guilty plea. Defendant alleges that the trial court did not advise him of his rights: (1) the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination; (2) trial by jury; and (3) confrontation of one's accusers. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). The issue is whether the prosecution carried its burden of proving that defendant voluntarily and understandingly entered his plea of guilty.
Defendant, with the advice of counsel, pleaded guilty on March 12, 1979, to armed robbery and was sentenced to fifteen years at hard labor.
On July 2, 1980, defendant filed an application challenging the validity of his plea. At the hearing, the prosecution introduced only the record of the proceeding at which the guilty plea was entered.
The trial judge attempted to ascertain that the plea was being made knowingly and voluntarily. Defendant was asked if he were aware of the rights being relinquished, the nature of the offense and the possible penalties. However, the judge did not explain the rights being waived and apparently relied upon the assumption that defense counsel had explained those rights.
Since the colloquy between defendant and the trial judge does not affirmatively reflect that defendant was aware he was waiving his three constitutional Boykin rights, his plea must be set aside. State v. Williams, 384 So.2d 779 (La., 1980).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
MARCUS and BLANCHE, JJ., dissent and assign reasons.
LEMMON, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
. The entire record of that proceeding is as follows:
"MR. LAWSON: Your Honor, this is 25,734, State v. Dobie Gillis Williams, and my understand (sic) is that the defendant desires to withdraw his former plea of Not Guilty to the charge of Armed Robbery and entered a plea of Guilty to the charge of Armed Robbery.
"MR. BURKETT: That's correct, Your Hon- or.
"THE COURT: Is that correct, Mr. Williams? "THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
"THE COURT: You have discussed this with your attorney?
"THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
"THE COURT: You understand that by entering this plea of guilty, you are giving up certain rights that you would have if you went to trial?
"THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
"THE COURT: This is freely and voluntarily done on your part?
"THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
"THE COURT: No one is forcing you to do this?
"THE DEFENDANT: No, sir.
"THE COURT: No one has promised you anything for doing this?
"THE DEFENDANT: No, sir.
"THE COURT: No one has promised you any particular sentence?
"THE DEFENDANT: No, sir.
"THE COURT: Has your attorney discussed with you the penalties that the law provides?
"THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
"THE COURT: You are familiar with the
nature of the charge of armed robbery? "THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
"THE COURT: And you are pleading guilty solely because you are, in fact, guilty, is that correct?
"THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
"THE COURT: The Court finds the defendant present in Court with his attorney is knowingly and intelligently entering this plea of guilty; that he understands the nature of the charge; that he is freely and voluntarily entering this plea. Would you state, Mr. District Attorney, the factual basis for the charge?
"DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Yes, sir, on or about the 4th day of September, 1978, the Defendant along with one Michael Williams, broke into the home of Leola Hill, here in Sabine Parish, armed themselves with a Coke bottle, held Mrs. Hill, hit her with the Coke bottle, armed themselves with a butcher knife and robber her of $10 in cash and then left the premises.
"THE COURT: Is that substantially true and correct, Mr. Williams?
"THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
"THE COURT: The Court finds there is a factual basis for the charge and for all reasons stated, accepts the defendant's plea of guilty. Do you waive the delays for sentencing?
"MR. BURKETT: No, sir, Your Honor, I would request a pre-sentence in this matter.
"THE COURT: The Court is ordering a pre-sentence investigation and is specifically requesting that the past conviction record of the defendant be included in the report. I believe that takes care of this."