Court Opinion

ID: 9671394
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:35:50.104718+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:09.753197
License: Public Domain

Wright, J.,
dissenting.
I respectfully disagree with the finding of the majority that Dodson was never informed that he had a right to counsel at the time of entering his guilty pleas.
If, as the majority states, Dodson was incorrectly informed by the court that he did not have a right to counsel unless he pled not guilty, how did this information prejudice Dodson? Dodson was advised that if he pled not guilty, a lawyer would be appointed for him. Had Dodson been advised that he could not have a lawyer prior to entering a plea, I would agree that he was prejudiced and should be entitled to a new trial. Instead, Dodson knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel by entering a guilty plea to the charges.
The trial court told Dodson:
*594Please be honest and don’t be bashful when you get up here. If you don’t understand any of the rights that I’m about to describe, or if you don’t understand what’s happening this afternoon to you and your case, ask a question, get my attention. I’ll improve your understanding. In other words, I’ll help you understand what you figure out what it is that you are going through this afternoon, help you understand your rights if you don’t understand them the first time around. Okay?
All right. Every defendant is presumed innocent, and that includes all of you, whatever you’ve been charged with, you are presumed to be innocent of those charges right now. That presumption will stay with you until you either go to trial and lose or until you enter a plea of guilty or no contest. If either of those things happens, then that presumption of innocence disappears. You will no longer be presumed to be innocent of what you’ve been charged with.
The trial court also explained Dodson’s right to a trial, his rights at trial, and the presumption of innocence. Regarding the right to counsel, the court stated:
Lastly, you have the right to a lawyer, either one hired by yourself, if you can afford to do that, or if you convince me that you can’t afford your own lawyer, then I can appoint a lawyer from the Public Defender’s Office to represent you, for whom you will not be charged anything. But you have to convince me that you’re eligible for a public defender, which means you have to be able or willing to discuss your financial affairs with me this afternoon.
The court then proceeded to explain the different pleas:
If you plead guilty, you’re telling me you did it. You are admitting your guilt. You are telling me you committed the offenses that you’re charged with. If you plead guilty this afternoon, you give up all of those rights I just described, no trial, no lawyer, no rights. You get convicted right here now this afternoon and you will face.the penalties that I will have told you about as soon as you get up here in front of the bench. That’s the guilty plea.
*595Not guilty — when you plead not guilty, you are telling me, “No. I didn’t do it Judge. I am not guilty. I want the State to be forced to prove me guilty at a trial,” and keep in mind, you don’t have to prove anything at trial. The burden is always on the State. You do not have to prove your innocence; the State has to prove your guilt. If you plead not guilty, you will get a trial, but not until probably the latter part of September. The problem that that creates that if you are unable to post the bond that I order you to post, that means you’re going to sit in jail for a month or so until your trial date rolls around. So keep that in mind.
The following colloquy occurred between the trial judge and Dodson:
THE COURT: Okay. With all your rights in mind, how do you want to plead to these charges?
MR. DODSON: Guilty, sir.
THE COURT: If you plead guilty, you give up all those rights I described, no trial, no lawyer, no rights. You’ll get convicted and you face those penalties that I’ve just described. Do you understand that?
MR. DODSON: Yes, sir.
The complaint filed against Dodson stated that
on or about the 19th day of August, 1994, at or near 30th & FOWLER, in Douglas County [Dodson] did unlawfully operate or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while . . . under the influence of alcoholic liquor or . . . had a concentration of ten-hundredths of one gram or more by weight of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of his . . . breath.
When the court inquired as to the factual basis, the prosecutor stated that Dodson was stopped for driving erratically on August 19 at 30th and Fowler Streets. Dodson, who was obviously intoxicated, tested .139 on a breath test, and a handgun was found in the car under the seat. The court accepted the pleas and asked Dodson if he had anything to say. Dodson replied that he was carrying the weapon for protection.
Whether Dodson could have a lawyer after he pled guilty is clearly not the issue. The trial court’s instruction to Dodson *596that he had a right to counsel, but that if he pled guilty, he did not have a right to counsel, even if incorrect, clearly did not prejudice Dodson.
“Since Chapman [v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S. Ct. 824, 17 L. Ed. 2d 705 (1967)], the Court has consistently made clear that it is the duty of a reviewing court to consider the trial record as a whole and to ignore errors that are harmless, including most constitutional violations.”
State v. Timmerman, 240 Neb. 74, 89, 480 N.W.2d 411, 420 (1992).
By a plea of guilty, a defendant does not necessarily waive his constitutional right to counsel. Rice v. Olson, 324 U. S. 786, 65 S. Ct. 989, 89 L. Ed. 1367. However, any constitutional right or guarantee may be waived although the waiver must be an intelligent relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege. Fay v. Noia, 372 U. S. 391, 83 S. Ct. 822, 9 L. Ed. 2d 837.
State v. Ninneman, 179 Neb. 729, 733, 140 N.W.2d 5, 8 (1966). Therefore, it is my opinion that Dodson knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel.
The majority finds that venue was not established before the trial court accepted Dodson’s guilty pleas. I disagree. State v. Vejvoda, 231 Neb. 668, 438 N.W.2d 461 (1989), relied upon by the majority to support its conclusion that venue must be proved by the prosecution, does not apply to Dodson. In Vejvoda, the defendant pled not guilty. Therefore, venue was a contested element of the complaint. Here, Dodson pled guilty. This distinction is crucial.
A guilty plea admits all facts recited in open court by the State and all facts alleged in the information or complaint. See, State v. Bargen, 219 Neb. 416, 363 N.W.2d 393 (1985); State v. Jones, 214 Neb. 145, 332 N.W.2d 702 (1983); Marteney v. State, 210 Neb. 172, 313 N.W.2d 449 (1981); Clark v. State, 150 Neb. 494, 34 N.W.2d 877 (1948). In Clark, we held:
A plea of guilty to a criminal complaint admits that the offense was committed, the time and place of its commission, and the identity of the person committing it, as *597charged; it is an admission of record of the truth of the charges made; it renders unnecessary the proof of the facts alleged; and it supports a finding of guilt made thereon.
150 Neb. at 497, 34 N.W.2d at 879. See, also, Leiby v. State, 79 Neb. 485, 113 N.W. 125 (1907).
“A voluntary and valid plea of guilty embodies a waiver of all defenses to the charge — procedural, statutory, and constitutional — except for the defense that the information or complaint is insufficient to charge a criminal offense.” State v. Biernacki, 237 Neb. 215, 222, 465 N.W.2d 732, 737 (1991). See State v. Edwards, 236 Neb. 445, 462 N.W.2d 93 (1990).
In State v. Irish, 223 Neb. 814, 394 N.W.2d 879 (1986), we cited State v. Hyslop, 189 Neb. 331, 202 N.W.2d 595 (1972), which suggested that by a defendant admitting he is in fact guilty of the crime charged, he has furnished a factual basis for accepting the plea. The factual basis given by the prosecutor was that Dodson was stopped at 30th and Fowler Streets for driving erratically. His breath tested .139. In my opinion, a factual basis existed for accepting the pleas, and I would affirm the convictions and sentences.
Connolly and Gerrard, JJ., join in this dissent.