Opinion ID: 2328411
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Guilty Plea Voluntary

Text: The transcript of the April 13, 1998 guilty plea hearing reflects that the prosecutor began the proceedings by stating, Your Honor, by the terms of Mr. Miller's plea agreement, he has agreed to enter a guilty plea .... The State is recommending a presentence investigation and will file an habitual offender petition. And that concludes the plea agreement. Defense counsel then stated, ... one of the things that we're concerned about obviously is this habitual offender [petition]. And I took an opportunity before we entered the plea to review, in JIC, [4] the various dates of conviction and sentencing. And ... the dates are such that he really only has two sentencing dates, although there are three prior felonies. And my understanding of the habitual offender act ... is that he will not be an habitual offender. The Superior Court judge then conducted the plea colloquy with Miller, confirming that he had some college education, that he had read, signed and understood the plea agreement, that he had committed the crime to which he was pleading guilty, that no one had promised him what his sentence would be, that he could receive up to twenty years incarceration, and that, if his attorney were incorrect and he qualified as an habitual offender, he was subjecting himself to a possible life sentence. Defense counsel then added, So the record is clear, Your Honor, he also understands that, under the present habitual offender act, that if I were wrong, the sentence in fact would include a minimum of 20 years, up to life in jail. The judge then asked Miller if he understood that and Miller stated, Yes. By the time of the August 28, 1998 sentencing hearing, both the prosecutor and defense counsel agreed that Miller's record of prior convictions qualified him for habitual offender status. After moving to dismiss his counsel, Miller again admitted that he had committed the robbery and made a lengthy statement disputing the contents of the presentence report. The judge then asked him if he had any basis for disputing the offenses or dates underlying the State's petition to have him declared an habitual offender, to which Miller replied, No. Following argument by the State that a life sentence should be imposed and argument by defense counsel that no more than twenty years should be imposed, the Superior Court judge imposed a thirty-year Level V term. The transcript of the guilty plea colloquy refutes Miller's claim of an involuntary guilty plea. While defense counsel stated his belief that Miller's record did not warrant a declaration of habitual offender status, the subsequent colloquy with the judge and counsel clearly placed Miller on notice of the consequences of his plea should his counsel be incorrect. The transcript reflects that Miller understood the nature of the plea and its consequences, was satisfied with the representation provided by his counsel, and knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered the plea. Absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, Miller is bound by the representations he made at the time the plea was entered. [5] To the extent Miller argues that his counsel was responsible for his rejecting a prior plea offer that would not have required him to be sentenced as an habitual offender, there is no factual support for that contention in the record.