Opinion ID: 4503535
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Information Concerning Effect of Sentence

Text: ¶ 18. Even if counsel had accurately informed petitioner that it was unlikely that he would be deported, the evidence reflects that petitioner reasonably labored under another critical material misunderstanding: he had every reason to believe that if he was not deported, he would at some future time—likely around the time of his minimum sentence—be eligible for treatment or parole. ¶ 19. “[M]isinformation regarding parole eligibility may provide a basis for a successful attack on the voluntariness of a plea.” Moulton, 158 Vt. at 584, 613 A.2d at 708. Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that he entered his plea “while reasonably relying on a material misunderstanding regarding his parole eligibility,” and that “the misunderstanding worked to his prejudice.” In re Blow, 2013 VT 75, ¶ 24, 194 Vt. 416, 82 A.3d 554 (quoting Moulton, 158 Vt. at 584, 613 A.2d at 708).4 This material misunderstanding must be based on “objective evidence.” 4 We have not expressly adopted a distinct “prejudice” requirement in the context of our more general caselaw regarding the impact of reasonable, material misunderstandings on the voluntariness of a plea. See, e.g., In re Kirby, 2012 VT 72, ¶ 14, 192 Vt. 640, 58 A.3d 230 (mem.) (explaining that petitioner may be entitled to post-conviction relief if plea is obtained through “ignorance, fear or misunderstanding,” if misunderstanding is “based on objective evidence which reasonably produced the misunderstanding” (quotation omitted)); State v. Fisk, 165 Vt. 260, 263, 682 A.2d 937, 939 (1996) (stating that to support withdrawal of plea, defendants “must provide objective evidence to demonstrate that [their] subjective misunderstanding was reasonable”); Stevens, 144 Vt. at 256, 478 A.2d. at 215 (stating that “we must determine if petitioner’s mistaken belief . . . when judged by objective evidence, was reasonably justified under the circumstances”). 8 Kirby, 2012 VT 72, ¶ 14 (quotation omitted). However, “[a]n explicit promise is not required in order for a plea to be considered involuntary.” In re Cronin, 133 Vt. 234, 236, 336 A.2d 164, 166 (1975). ¶ 20. We recognized in State v. Lumumba that, where a defendant is removable by immigration enforcement, DOC’s policy is to withhold sex-offender treatment, and that a defendant who does not go through treatment will serve the maximum sentence. 2014 VT 85, ¶ 25, 197 Vt. 315, 104 A.3d 627. Therefore, as Attorney Paul Volk, testifying as an expert on the applicable standard of care, testified: “essentially what the judge did . . . would leave [petitioner’s] fate entirely to whether or not the Department of Homeland Security was ever actually going to remove him.” If it did not, petitioner’s sentence would not be a twelve-year minimum but “effectively a life sentence without the possibility of parole.” Lumumba, 2014 VT 85, ¶ 21. ¶ 21. There is no evidence that defense counsel ever made petitioner aware of DOC’s policy or brought it to the attention of the court at the change-of-plea or sentencing hearings.5 Rather, at sentencing, all parties and the judge appeared to believe it was possible for petitioner to receive treatment and to be paroled after his minimum sentence. The sentencing judge stated: The choice of whether to complete available treatment programs is one for [petitioner] to make. And once he is in jail he may well conclude that he can benefit from the active and successful participation in such a program. .... Irrespective of any . . . immigration consequences, it is the intent of this Court that [petitioner] serve the full sentence imposed, and that We have done so in the above cases involving misinformation as to parole eligibility. As a practical matter, the question of “prejudice,” and the question of materiality may be one and the same—would a defendant have done anything different in the absence of the misinformation. After petitioner was sentenced, counsel wrote in an email that “no matter what time he’s 5 in, DOC won’t do any programming with him because of the ICE detainer.” Although the email was discussed throughout the PCR proceedings, this portion of the email was not. There is no evidence that counsel had this information before sentencing, or that she shared it with petitioner if so. 9 he not be released until such time as he has successfully completed any required treatment program and is deemed to no longer be a threat to public safety. The PCR court recognized that these statements reflected an incorrect assumption regarding petitioner’s parole eligibility. As discussed below, this misunderstanding meets all the requirements outlined in Moulton and reaffirmed most recently in Blow. See Blow, 2013 VT 75, ¶ 24 (quoting Moulton, 158 Vt. at 584, 613 A.2d at 708). ¶ 22. Petitioner’s plea was based on a material misunderstanding as to the sentence that he was agreeing to. In different circumstances, we have rejected voluntariness challenges based on misunderstandings of parole eligibility, reasoning that “information concerning parole eligibility is inherently imprecise owing to any number of variables such as the petitioner’s conduct while in prison, changes in the makeup or philosophy of parole boards, and changes in the law.” Blow, 2013 VT 75, ¶ 26 (quoting In re Shaimas, 2008 VT 82, ¶ 9, 184 Vt. 580, 958 A.2d 646 (mem.)). However, this is not a situation where the parole laws changed after sentencing, or where a petitioner’s own future actions will affect parole eligibility. This is a situation where a defendant, due to established policies beyond his control, would be categorically ineligible for parole. See Lumumba, 2014 VT 85, ¶ 25 (holding that court abused its discretion in “fail[ing] to consider whether the sentence issued would, in fact, be effectively a determinate life sentence”). Petitioner had every reason to believe that if he was not deported, he was agreeing to a twelve-year minimum; in fact, he faced a life sentence with no possibility of parole.6 6 We recognize that in Moulton we declined to impose an affirmative requirement, not mandated by Vermont Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, that defendants be advised by their counsel of how and under what circumstances parole eligibility would be affected by continued denial of criminal responsibility. 158 Vt. at 583-84, 613 A.2d at 708. For the reasons set forth above, we conclude this case is governed by the second holding in Moulton that misinformation regarding parole eligibility may provide a basis for a successful attack on the voluntariness of a plea. Id. at 584-85, 613 A.2d at 708. Accordingly, we need not decide whether the categorical nature of petitioner’s ineligibility for parole in this case, regardless of his own future choices or actions, distinguishes this case from Moulton with respect to counsel’s affirmative duty to advise a 10 ¶ 23. Petitioner’s belief was reasonable. Given clear statements by the sentencing court that he would be eligible for rehabilitation programming, and the lack of any other guidance from counsel, petitioner had every reason to believe that if he was not deported, he could eventually undergo treatment and become eligible for parole. He had no reason to expect that he would be categorically excluded from programming or the eventual possibility of release. The court’s statements during the change-of-plea hearing provide the “objective evidence of reasonable confusion” necessary to render a plea involuntary. In re Stevens, 144 Vt. at 256, 478 A.2d at 215. ¶ 24. Finally, the misunderstanding “worked to [petitioner’s] prejudice.” Blow, 2013 VT 75, ¶ 24. The PCR court reasoned that there “could not have been any prejudice” to petitioner because there is no evidence that, with better legal advice, he would have taken his chances at trial, and no evidence that the state’s attorney would have offered a better deal. We reject the PCR court’s reasoning for two reasons. ¶ 25. First, the favorability of a plea bargain alone is not determinative. “To ensure due process, the standard of review on the voluntariness of a plea cannot be that there were good reasons for the defendant to enter the plea, even if he did not know what rights he was giving up.” In re Calderon, 2003 VT 94, ¶ 21, 176 Vt. 532, 838 A.2d 109 (mem.) (Johnson, J., dissenting). In this case, the prejudice to petitioner is clear: due to the misunderstanding, he agreed to a materially harsher sentence than he or anyone else thought he was agreeing to—a life sentence instead of twelve years to life. The PCR court correctly concluded that this misunderstanding “reasonably could have affected [the sentencing court’s] analysis.” It is clear to us—and the State does not argue otherwise in its brief—that petitioner’s identical misunderstanding reasonably could have affected his decision to enter a guilty plea pursuant to the terms of this agreement. Cf. In re Williams, 2014 VT 67, ¶ 29, 197 Vt. 39, 101 A.3d 151 (explaining that prejudice prong for similarly situated defendant that a guilty plea would lead to an effective sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. 11 ineffective assistance of counsel satisfied by “reasonable probability” of different outcome). Not just the sentencing proceedings, but the entire bargaining process, was affected by the mistaken belief that petitioner could become eligible for parole after twelve years. ¶ 26. Second, we are not persuaded by the PCR court’s finding that there was no evidence that the state’s attorney could have been persuaded to agree to a more favorable plea agreement or that the court would have accepted it. The record reflects that the state’s attorney was confident that petitioner would be deported well before his minimum sentence, and that the State was satisfied with what it apparently believed would be a twelve year minimum. The evidence does not support the inference that the state’s attorney sought an effective sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Likewise, the sentencing court urged petitioner to participate in treatment, and anticipated that he could become eligible for release after twelve years, as the PCR court explicitly found. Therefore, the sentencing court was willing to accept an agreement that did not effectively amount to a life sentence, and in fact believed that it was approving such a sentence. ¶ 27. Petitioner reasonably relied on a material misunderstanding regarding his parole eligibility, and that misunderstanding worked to his prejudice. Thus, his conviction must be vacated. The order of the civil division is reversed, petitioner’s conviction is vacated, and the case is remanded to the civil division with instructions to refer the case to the criminal division for further proceedings. FOR THE COURT: