Opinion ID: 2195168
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Voluntary and Intelligent Nature of Plea

Text: The main issue on appeal is whether defendant entered a voluntary and intelligent nolo contendere plea. In Rhode Island, a nolo plea is equivalent to a plea of guilty. State v. Feng, 421 A.2d 1258, 1266 (R.I.1980). Thus, when a defendant enters a plea of nolo contendere, the defendant waives several federal constitutional rights and consents to judgment of the court. Id. (quoting Johnson v. Mullen, 120 R.I. 701, 706, 390 A.2d 909, 912 (1978)). See also State v. Williams, 122 R.I. 32, 38-39, 404 A.2d 814, 818 (1979) (By pleading guilty or nolo contendere, a defendant waiv[es] [the] right[ ] to a trial by jury, the presumption of innocence, the privilege against self incrimination, and the rights to confront and cross-examine her accusers, to testify and to call witnesses in her own defense, to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and to appeal a conviction to this court.). Accordingly, when this Court accepts a nolo contendere plea, we must determine that the defendant has entered the plea both voluntarily and intelligently. Feng, 421 A.2d at 1266. The Superior Court codified the procedures for assuring the constitutional requirement that a guilty or nolo contendere plea be voluntary and intelligent in Rule 11 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure. Feng, 421 A.2d at 1266-67. Rule 11 states, in relevant part, that a court shall not accept    a plea of nolo contendere without first addressing the defendant personally and determining that the plea is made voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea. Pursuant to Rule 11's mandate, the court must conduct an on-the-record examination of the defendant before accepting [the] plea [in order] to determine if the plea is being made voluntarily with an understanding of the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea. State v. Frazar, 822 A.2d 931, 935 (R.I.2003) (quoting Ouimette v. State, 785 A.2d 1132, 1136 (R.I.2001)). The trial court must engage the defendant in an extensive inquiry to demonstrate on the record that the defendant understood the nature of the charges and the consequences of his plea. Feng, 421 A.2d at 1267. Although Rule 11 does not specify the extent or content of the colloquy, the record and the circumstances in their totality must demonstrate to a reviewing court that the defendant's plea was voluntary and intelligent. Feng, 421 A.2d at 1267. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the trial justice's colloquy with Moniz was thorough and that the court properly entered the nolo contendere plea. The trial justice established that Moniz had completed high school and did not have any difficulty reading, writing, or understanding English. Moniz also said that he understood the terms of his plea agreement. The trial justice then directed the prosecutor to recite what facts the state was prepared to prove if the matter went to trial. The Judge: I'll ask you to listen as a representative of [the] Attorney General's office describes for this Court exactly what it is the State of Rhode Island would stand ready to prove if this case were in fact to proceed to trial. When he concludes, I'll be asking you [Moniz] whether or not you are in substantial agreement with the statement that he is about to make. Mr. Page? Mr. Page: In the matter of the State of Rhode Island versus John Moniz if that matter were to proceed to trial, your Honor, the State would prove that on 30 November 1996 in Bristol that Mr. Moniz did unlawfully possess with an intent to deliver a controlled substance; that substance being marijuana. The Judge: Mr. Moniz, are you in substantial agreement with that statement? John Moniz: Yes, your Honor. The trial justice clearly explained the charges, and the prosecutor provided Moniz with the factual basis for the charge. [4] The applicant acknowledged, on the record, that he did engage in the charged unlawful activities. Thus, the mere fact that the state's toxicology report was erroneous does not persuade us that Moniz's plea was not voluntary and intelligent. Rather, what is persuasive is that Moniz, who at all times was represented by counsel, knowingly admitted to the charges. By entering the nolo contendere plea, Moniz voluntarily waived his rights. Indeed, as the motion justice noted, an intelligent plea does not necessarily mean that the plea is wise. Rather, it indicates that defendants are aware of the consequences of their pleas. Therefore, viewing the record as a whole, we conclude (1) that the court fully satisfied Rule 11's requirement by determining that Moniz understood the nature of the charges and (2) that the court entered a voluntary and intelligent plea of nolo contendere.