Opinion ID: 857090
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Due Process Violation for Plea Withdrawal

Text: Warren next complains that his due process rights were violated when the state trial court refused to let him withdraw his no contest plea. This claim is closely related to Warren’s complaints about the representation he received from Wynn. Specifically, he argues that his plea was not knowing or voluntary due to Wynn’s ineffective assistance, and additionally that he may not have been competent to even enter the plea. We cannot find merit in either argument. As with his claim that Wynn was ineffective for failing to request a competency hearing prior to the plea, it is not clear to us that Warren presented a due process argument to the state courts with regard to his plea. While Warren repeatedly petitioned the Wisconsin courts to withdraw his plea, his pro se arguments were couched in state law rather than federal constitutional protections. To be sure, the Wisconsin standard that a plea must be knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered is the same as the constitutional due process No. 12-1148 19 standard. See Wis. Stat. § 971.08; see also Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20, 28-29 (1992). But here again, the state does not argue default and so any default argument has been forfeited. Perruquet, 390 F.3d at 519. Regardless, even under the more permissive de novo standard of review, Warren’s arguments fail. To survive a due process challenge, a plea must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligently entered. Id. The defendant bears the burden of proving that a plea did not meet those requirements. Virsnieks v. Smith, 521 F.3d 707, 714-15 (7th Cir. 2008). Generally, “pleas are accorded a great measure of finality because they are important components of this country’s criminal justice system.” Id. at 714 (internal quotation marks omitted). To determine whether a plea was knowing and voluntary, a court must look at “all of the relevant circumstances surrounding it.” Id. “To enter a voluntary and intelligent plea, a defendant must have full awareness of the plea’s direct consequences, real notice of the true nature of the charge against him, and understand the law in relation to the facts.” Id. (in- ternal quotation marks and citations omitted). “However, lawyers need not inform their clients of every possible defense, argument, or tactic, especially one not suggested by any evidence at the time.” St. Pierre v. Walls, 297 F.3d 617, 635 (7th Cir. 2002) (emphasis omitted). 20 No. 12-1148
Warren presents three potential reasons that his plea could have been unknowing based on Wynn’s assistance: he claims that he was unaware that he had the ability to pursue a self-defense claim at an intentional homicide trial; he says that he was unaware that there were witnesses who could support a self-defense claim; and he says that he did not know that the basis for the intentional homicide charge was wrong. The record does not support Warren on any of these points. Instead, it shows a defendant who understood the bargain he was making and who was informed of his rights. Warren agreed during the plea colloquy that he understood the defenses he was relinquishing. (R. 21-11 at 10.) He now contends, without additional support, that his statement was incorrect, or at least incomplete as it related to self-defense and the original intentional homicide charge. It strains our credulity to believe that Warren did not know that self-defense could be presented as a defense to intentional homicide. We need not rely on our instincts, however. During the plea hearing (and before the plea was finalized), Wynn, the trial judge, and the prosecutor had a discussion re- garding self-defense considerations, noting that Wynn had discussed the defense with Warren, and even citing a recent Wisconsin case as a motivating factor for the charge being reduced and the acceptance of the plea deal. (R. 21-11 at 18-19.) Therefore, Warren asks us to ignore not only his statements to the court and common sense, but also a discussion that occurred in open court, No. 12-1148 21 in his presence. That we will not do. We refuse to find that Warren’s plea was unknowing because he lacked knowledge of a potential defense that had been discussed in his presence immediately before his plea was accepted. As for the claim of the supposed supporting wit- nesses, we have already addressed the issue. There is nothing in the police report, and Warren has presented nothing since, that indicates that the Washingtons actually could have supported any claim of self-defense. Given that, Warren’s alleged lack of knowledge cannot be the basis for overturning his plea. Warren’s next argument—that he did not know the basis for the intentional homicide charge was wrong—is also unsupported by the record. Warren argues that the original charge was based on the incorrect allegation that he planned to rob Morrow. He says that, had he been aware of the allegation, he would not have agreed to plead to a lesser charge. The argument that he was unaware of the robbery allegation is simply not true. The police report reflects the fact that officers explicitly presented Warren with the allegation after his arrest and that he denied it. (R. 21-8 at 47.) Warren does not challenge the report’s veracity (nor did he at any other time). Furthermore, the transcript of the plea hearing indicates that Wynn discussed the robbery theory with Warren. (R. 21-11 at 12-15, 18-19.) Indeed, nothing that Warren asserts leads us to the conclusion that the plea was unknowing, involuntary, or unintelligent on account of Wynn’s assistance. 22 No. 12-1148
Similarly, we cannot find a due process violation in the plea based on Warren’s alleged lack of mental capacity. Again, we look at “all of the relevant circumstances surrounding” the plea. See Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 749 (1970). Here, Warren does not allege that he actually lacked the capacity to enter a knowing and voluntary plea, however, and offers no evidence other than Dr. Rawski’s report on the issue. Instead, he argues that he was denied due process because his capacity was not determined and the report raises “serious questions.” (Appellant’s Br. at 35.) Warren “might not” have been competent to enter his plea as he argues, (id. at 36), but given all of the available evidence (including Dr. Rawski’s report), that possibility appears very unlikely. To recap: Dr. Rawski described Warren as “articulate” and “goal-directed” and stated that Warren’s “[c]ognition was intact.” (R. 21-3 at 58.) Warren ably participated throughout the legal proceedings. As Warren correctly notes, due process requires a court to order a competency hearing when there is “bona fide doubt as to the defendant’s competency.” Burt, 422 F.3d at 564. We cannot find any such doubt in the evidence Warren presents. Some theoretical uncertainty is not enough to form the basis of a due process violation.