Court Opinion

ID: 9758854
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 23:52:34.236902+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:56.844562
License: Public Domain

BURGESS, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The majority refuses to order a hearing on Mr. Watson’s motion for new trial because “the supporting affidavit is conclusory in nature.” The affidavit, in pertinent part, states:
“... I did not intelligently, knowingly or voluntarily enter my plea. I did not understand the plea agreement fully, and I did not understand the consequences of my plea.”
Interestingly, the written plea admonishments, signed by Watson, state:
“... I am aware of the consequences of my plea ... my plea is freely and voluntarily made.”
The oral admonitions inquire:
The Court: Mr. Watson, are you pleading guilty freely?
Watson: Yes, sir.
The Court: Are you pleading guilty voluntarily?
Watson: Yes, sir.
*562Mr. Watson’s affidavit is no more con-elusory than his admonitions, yet we routinely accept his statements to the court without question. Clearly the statements in the affidavit contradict his oral and written ones at the plea. This should be enough to warrant a hearing. I would abate the- appeal for a hearing on the motion for new trial.