Opinion ID: 2540605
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Nunley's original guilty plea/jury waiver remained valid after his case was remanded for re-sentencing.

Text: Nunley argues that he should have had a fresh slate after his case was remanded for re-sentencing, thus making his original guilty plea and jury waiver ineffective. Nunley's accomplice, Michael Taylor, made a similar argument that was rejected by this Court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Like Nunley, Taylor pled guilty in front of one judge, but after reversal on appeal the original judge recused, and a different judge again sentenced him to death upon remand. This Court held that the original guilty plea and jury waiver remained valid upon remand. State v. Taylor, 929 S.W.2d 209, 215-216 (Mo. banc 1996). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals also upheld Taylor's guilty plea and held that the defendant had no substantial and legitimate expectation of being sentenced by the judge to whom he pled guilty under Missouri law and no independent federal right to be sentenced by the same judge who took the plea. Taylor v. Bowersox, 329 F.3d 963, 968-969 (8th Cir.2003). In addition, this Court has already ruled that Nunley's original guilty plea and waiver remained effective after remand. In Nunley, the defendant argued that it is unfair and unjust for him to be sentenced by any judge other than the original trial judge to whom he entered his guilty plea because he purposefully chose to plead guilty and be sentenced by the original judge. . . 923 S.W.2d at 919-20. This Court stated that a defendant should not be permitted under all circumstances to withdraw a guilty plea when the original judge is unavailable for sentencing. The dispositive factor should be whether the sentencing judge is familiar with the prior proceedings to permit an informed sentencing decision. Id. at 921. This Court held that the record reflected that Judge O'Malley was familiar with the prior proceedings, so not permitting defendant to withdraw his plea does not result in manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice. Id. at 922. In addition, this Court noted that the order to remand the case did not reverse the plea. This is demonstrated by this Court specifically remanding for a new penalty hearing and imposition of sentence but not a new plea hearing. Id. at 919. The original plea and jury waiver remained valid after the remand. Other jurisdictions support that a waiver of a right through a guilty plea remains valid after the case is remanded. State v. Michael A., 297 Conn. 808, 1 A.3d 46 (2010) (defendant's guilty plea and waiver of a jury trial remained valid after his case was remanded for re-sentencing); People v. Sofia, 62 A.D.3d 1159, 881 N.Y.S.2d 185 (N.Y.App.Div. 3d Dept.2009) (defendant's original waiver of appeal precluded him from challenging the sentence imposed at re-sentencing).