Opinion ID: 1863023
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Applicability of the harmless error test to La.C.Cr.P. art. 556.1 violations

Text: La.C.Cr.P. art. 556.1 was modeled after Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 11 requires the district court, before accepting a guilty plea, to address the defendant in open court and inform him of, and determine that he understands, among other things, the nature of the charge to which the plea is offered, the mandatory minimum penalty provided by law, if any, and the maximum possible penalty provided by law.... Fed. R.Crim.P. 11(c)(1). In 1983, Section (h) was added to Rule 11 to provide that any variance from the procedures required by this rule which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded. Fed. R.Crim.P. 11(h). The Advisory Notes to Rule 11 make clear that the addition of subsection (h) in 1983 was not intended to be read as supporting extreme or speculative harmless error claims or, as, in effect, nullifying important Rule 11 safeguards. The Note continues: There would not be harmless error under division (h) where, for example ... there had been absolutely no inquiry by the judge into defendant's understanding of the nature of the charge and the harmless error claim of the government rests upon nothing more than the assertion that it may be assumed defendant possessed such understanding merely because he expressed a desire to plead guilty. The Comments following La.C.Cr.P. art. 556.1 state that the article clarifies the court's duty when accepting a plea of nolo contendere or a plea of guilty in a criminal case and incorporates the essence of F.R.Cr.P. 11. In addition, La.C.Cr.P. art. 556.1 conforms to this Court's Jackson-Boykin three right articulation rule. [4] La.C.Cr.P. art. 556.1, Official Comments (a). However, La.C.Cr.P. art. 556.1 does not contain its own harmless error provision. Thus, Guzman argues, any violation of La.C.Cr.P. art. 556.1 is necessarily reversible error. We disagree for the following reasons. First, unlike requirements (1)-(4) contained in La.C.Cr.P. art. 556.1(A) [5] which the judge is directed to give prior to accepting a guilty plea, section (E) simply states that [i]n any case where a subsequent offense carries an enhanced penalty, the court shall inform the defendant of the penalties for subsequent offenses. Therefore, advice regarding the penalties for subsequent offenses is not even required to be given before the plea is taken. Thus, in addition to the reasons stated below, under the plain language of La. C.Cr.P. art. 556.1, clearly the failure of a trial judge to advise the defendant of the penalties for subsequent offenses under La.C.Cr.P. art. 556.1(E) is not reversible error. Second, Louisiana's Code of Criminal Procedure contains its own harmless error provision. Article 921 provides that [a] judgment or ruling shall not be reversed by an appellate court because of any error, defect, irregularity, or variance which does not affect substantial rights of the accused. La.C.Cr.P. art. 921. This article sets forth the basic concept of appellate review and is the primary legislative mandate governing appeals. La. C.Cr.P. art. 921, Official Revision Comment (a). The Comments also provide that courts have complied with the spirit and intent of the law in applying La. C.Cr.P. art. 921 and its source provision, former La. R.S. 15:557, in that [w]hen the trial irregularity obviously had no significant bearing upon the outcome, the supreme court has refused to reverse on a technicality. La.C.Cr.P. art. 921, Official Revision Comment (c). There is no reason to find that the legislature did not intend for this article to apply to the trial judge's failure to inform defendant Guzman of the mandatory minimum sentences or the enhanced penalties for subsequent offenses. This Court has never extended the core Boykin constitutional requirements to include advice with respect to sentencing. State v. Nuccio, 454 So.2d 93, 104 (La.1984) (holding that the scope of Boykin has not been expanded to include advising the defendant of the possible consequences of his actions or that his conviction may be used as a basis for the filing of a future multiple offender bill). In fact, this Court has recently specifically held that such advice is not part of this Court's core Boykin constitutional requirements. State v. Anderson, 98-2977 (La.3/19/99), 732 So.2d 517. In State v. Anderson, the appellate court vacated the defendant's sentence for third offense DWI because in taking the defendant's prior plea to second offense DWI, the trial judge failed to inform the defendant of the sentencing range for that offense. State v. Anderson, 30,901 (La.App. 2 Cir. 10/29/98), 720 So.2d 355. This Court reversed, and reinstated the defendant's conviction and sentence for third offense DWI holding as follows: The transcript of defendant's January, 1995 guilty plea colloquy accompanying his conviction for first offense DWI shows minimal but adequate compliance with this Court's decision in State v. Jones, 404 So.2d 1192 (La.1981). The defendant was represented by counsel and nothing in the contemporaneous records of the guilty plea undercuts the presumption that counsel explained the nature of the charge in sufficient detail that the defendant had notice of what his plea asked him to admit. Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637, 644-46, 96 S.Ct. 2253, 2257, 49 L.Ed.2d 108 (1976). Advice with respect to the defendant's sentencing exposure may facilitate the taking of a voluntary guilty plea, see State ex rel. LaFleur v. Donnelly, 416 So.2d 82, 84 (La.1982) ; La.C.Cr.P. art. 556.1(A)(1) (1997 La. Acts 1061), but it has never formed part of this Court's core Boykin requirements for the entry of a presumptively valid guilty plea in any case. See State v. Nuccio, 454 So.2d 93, 104 (La.1984); State v. Baum, 95-0384 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/4/95), 663 So.2d 285, 288, writ denied, 95-2685 (La.2/9/96), 667 So.2d 528. State v. Anderson, supra at 517 (emphasis added). Thus, violations of La.C.Cr.P. art. 556.1 which do not rise to the level of Boykin violations are not exempt from the broad scope of La.C.Cr.P. art. 921. Third, the comments to La.C.Cr.P. art. 556.1, which was not enacted until 1997, well after the 1983 amendment adding the harmless error rule to Federal Rule 11, instruct us that the article incorporates the essence of F.R.Cr.P. 11. La.C.Cr.P. 556.1, Comment (a). Thus, we look to the federal jurisprudence interpreting Rule 11 as guidance in interpreting our own Article 556.1. The United States Fifth Circuit, which previously had held that any total failure of a trial court to address a Rule 11 core [6] concern mandated that the plea be set aside, has recently instituted a straight-forward approach of universal application of Rule 11(h) harmless error analysis to review all complaints of Rule 11 violation in which ... an error was made. United States v. Johnson, 1 F.3d 296, 301-302, and 303 n. 32 (5th Cir.1993) (en banc) (expressly overruling United States v. Martirosian, 967 F.2d 1036 (5th Cir.1992) to the extent that Martirosian distinguished between Rule 11 core and noncore concerns as a basis for applying a rule of automatic reversal). The court then set forth the following harmless error test: To determine whether a Rule 11 error is harmless (i.e., whether the error affects substantial rights), we focus on whether the defendant's knowledge and comprehension of the full and correct information would have been likely to [affect his] willingness to plead guilty. Stated another way, we examine the facts and circumstances of the ... case to see if the district court's flawed compliance with ... Rule 11 ... may reasonably be viewed as having been a material factor affecting [defendant]'s decision to plead guilty. Johnson, supra at 302 (citing United States v. Bachynsky, supra at 1360). As in the consolidated cases sub judice, in Johnson, the district court failed to advise the defendant of the mandatory minimum statutory penalty of one year, but the Fifth Circuit held that such error was harmless given that the defendant had accepted a plea bargain and agreed to plead guilty knowing that the plea was certain to produce a sentence of not less than 21 years. Id. at 303. The court emphasized, however, that the determination of harmless error was a fact sensitive inquiry and that what might be harmless error in one case may not be in another case. [7] Id. at 303, n. 31. Other federal circuits follow a similar approach in applying a harmless error analysis to Rule 11 violations. See United States v. Gigot, 147 F.3d 1193, 1197-98 (10th Cir.1998) (adopting Johnson ); United States v. Richardson, 121 F.3d 1051, 1058-59 (7th Cir.1997) (holding that a harmless error analysis focuses on whether the defendant's knowledge and comprehension of the full and correct information would have been likely to affect his willingness to plead guilty) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); United States v. McCarthy, 97 F.3d 1562, 1575 (8th Cir.1996) (adopting Seventh Circuit approach); United States v. Goins, 51 F.3d 400, 402 (4th Cir.1995) (adopting Fifth and Seventh Circuit approaches); United States v. Dewalt, 92 F.3d 1209, 1214 (D.C.Cir.1996) (holding that a district court's failure to comply with Rule 11(c)(1) is harmless if the record reveals either that the defendant had actual notice of the information that the district judge failed to convey or that the information would not have been important to the defendant.) We adopt the harmless error test enunciated in Johnson in this case involving violations of La.C.Cr.P. art. 556.1(A)(1) and (E). This holding should resolve the conflict among the circuits, notably in cases involving violations of La.C.Cr.P. art. 556.1(A)(1). See e.g., State v. King, 98-446 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/7/98), 720 So.2d 103; State v. Longnon, 98-551 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/28/98), 720 So.2d 825; State v. Coco, supra ; State v. Stamp, 98-193 (La.App. 5 Cir. 7/28/98), 718 So.2d 531 (all holding that violations of La.C.Cr.P. art. 556.1(A)(1) are subject to harmless error analysis). But see e.g., State v. Clay, 30,770 (La.App. 2 Cir. 5/13/98), 714 So.2d 123 (failure to advise of mandatory minimum sentence is reversible error unless there is an affirmative showing that defendant had been made aware of it); State v. Reynolds, 98-170 (La.App. 5 Cir. 7/28/98), 716 So.2d 485 (failure to comply with La. C.Cr.P. art. 556.1(A)(1) is reversible error unless the record shows that the defendant was aware of the nature of the crime or the sentencing exposure from another source), ruling vacated, 98-2281 (La.4/16/99), 733 So.2d 1191(issue not reached and court of appeal ruling vacated because defendant decided that he wished to retain the benefits of his plea agreement); State v. Chisley, 98-169 (La.App. 5 Cir. 7/28/98), 718 So.2d 537 (following Reynolds ). In the Guzman case, the transcript from the plea proceeding indicates that Guzman was represented by counsel, advised of his three Boykin rights, informed of the nature of the offense of which he was charged and that the maximum penalty for the offense was 6 months in jail, a $500 fine or both, represented that he had not been forced, threatened or coerced in any way to render his guilty plea, and understood the nature of the proceedings. The trial judge accepted his guilty plea, finding that there was a factual basis for it. Guzman was then sentenced to a fine of $500 or 50 days in jail, plus a 120 day suspended sentence, fines, DWI School, and community service. Absent from the transcript is any mention by the judge of the mandatory minimum sentence for first offense DWI, or that the conviction could be used to enhance the penalty for subsequent offenses. Guzman argues that he would not have pled guilty had he been informed of the mandatory minimum sentence for first offense DWI and that the conviction could be used to enhance the penalty for subsequent offenses. Just as we rejected that argument in Anderson, we reject it here. It is unreasonable to believe that had Guzman known that the minimum sentence to which he would be exposed was 10 days in jail, which could be and was suspended, that he would not have pled guilty. Further, Guzman was actually only sentenced to a $500 fine or 50 days in jail, with an additional 120 day sentence which was suspended. Thus, Guzman received no mandatory jail time. Likewise, in the absence of any particularized basis for this argument, we do not accept the contention that had Guzman known that a subsequent offense carried a more severe penalty than a first offense DWI, he would not have pled guilty to the first offense DWI. Such knowledge may have, and should have, affected his decision to drive while intoxicated a second time, but it clearly would not have been a material factor in his decision to plead guilty to the first offense. Further, as stated above, the trial judge was not even required by La.C.Cr.P. art. 556.1(E) to advise Guzman of the penalties for subsequent offenses prior to accepting his guilty plea. Accordingly, we find that any error in the 556.1 colloquy was harmless as to defendant Guzman. [8]