Opinion ID: 1142795
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: mootness by guilty plea

Text: After this appeal was submitted, the State filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. The State showed that on March 30, 1983, in lieu of retrial on the pending charge of retail theft, appellant pleaded guilty to a charge of theft by receiving (the same merchandise), and the prosecution recommended that his sentence give credit for the time he had already served in jail. Sentence has not yet been imposed. Citing Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973) (composition of grand jury), the State now argues that appellant's guilty plea had the effect of waiving all nonjurisdictional errors in the prior proceedings and requires dismissal of this appeal. The short answer to the State is that this identical argument was made and expressly rejected in Menna v. New York, 423 U.S. 61, 96 S.Ct. 241, 46 L.Ed.2d 195 (1975). That case reversed a state decision that a double jeopardy claim was waived by a guilty plea. The Court held: Where the State is precluded by the United States Constitution from haling a defendant into court on a charge, federal law requires that a conviction on that charge be set aside even if the conviction was entered pursuant to a counseled plea of guilty. Id. at 62, 96 S.Ct. at 242. For the reasons stated in Menna v. New York , we consider its holding just as binding for this plea to the substituted charge of theft by receiving as it would have been to a plea to the original charge of retail theft. The motion to dismiss for mootness is therefore denied. The order denying the writ of habeas corpus is reversed, and the case is remanded for the entry of an order consistent with this opinion. HALL, C.J., and STEWART and DURHAM, JJ., concur.