Court Opinion

ID: 4963430
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-09-24 15:27:31.63623+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:57.535136
License: Public Domain

CALKINS, J.,
with whom
ALEXANDER, J., joins, dissenting.
[¶ 11] I respectfully dissent. In my view the performance of counsel is inadequate when the criminal defendant enters a guilty plea and the record of the plea proceeding does not demonstrate that the defendant was informed in the courtroom of the maximum prison sentence that could be imposed. Because the record of Heon’s plea proceeding does not demonstrate that he was informed of the maximum possible prison sentence in open court, the post-conviction court was compelled to find that counsel was inadequate. I would vacate the judgment and remand for the court to consider the prejudice prong of the inadequacy analysis. See Laferriere v. State, 1997 ME 169, ¶ 7, 697 A.2d 1301, 1304-05 (adopting Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 57, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985)).
[¶ 12] Our rules require that a defendant be informed, in open court, of the maximum possible sentence that can be imposed. M.R.Crim. P. 11(c). The purpose of Rule 11 is to insure that any plea by the defendant is made knowingly. The conviction of a defendant whose plea of guilty is not knowing and voluntary violates the defendant’s due process rights. See Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243 n. 5, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969).
[¶ 13] Nowhere in the record of Heon’s plea proceeding is there a discussion of the maximum possible sentence that could be imposed. The maximum sentence that Heon was facing if he pleaded guilty to two Class B offenses was twenty years. In fact, the sentence ultimately imposed on Heon was twenty years. Heon was never asked in open court if he knew that twenty years in prison was possible. The plea agreement had not been reduced to writing. Heoris attorney never made an affirmative statement at the Rule 11 proceeding that he had informed Heon of the twenty-year maximum possible sentence. Likewise, the prosecutor never stated at the Rule 11 proceeding that twenty years was the maximum possible sentence. Nor did the court itself inform Heon that he was facing a twenty-year sentence. In short, no one in the courtroom at the plea proceeding told Heon that twenty years was a possible sentence. No one asked Heon if he understood the maximum possible sentence.
[¶ 14] At an absolute minimum, defense counsel should insure that Rule 11 is followed when there is a guilty plea, and we should require the “reasonably competent attorney” to make certain that the Rule 11 requirements are followed. To be sure, the Rule 11 responsibility is one that is shared by the court, prosecutor, and defense counsel. Each are responsible for not only insuring that the defendant’s plea is voluntary, but for making certain that the record demonstrates that the plea is voluntary. The court is required to “address the defendant personally in open court and inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant understands, ... the maximum possible sentence.” M.R.Crim. P. 11(c), (c)(1). When the court neglects to do so, however, either the defense counsel or the prosecutor should politely remind the court of this requirement. For example, when it is apparent that the court has forgotten to address the defendant on this issue, defense counsel could prompt the court to provide the required information to the defendant by stating something along the lines of: “Your honor, *1072I have reviewed the maximum possible sentence with the defendant, and he is prepared to answer your inquiry about it.”
[¶ 15] The Rule 11 requirement that a defendant be told in open court of the maximum possible sentence was not met at Heon’s Rule 11 proceeding. Because Heon’s counsel permitted him to plead guilty without the requirement of the rule having been met and without the court ascertaining that Heon understood that he was facing a twenty-year sentence, counsel’s performance was inadequate. The post-conviction court was compelled to find as such.
[¶ 16] A finding that counsel’s performance was inadequate does not mean that the post-conviction court was required to grant relief. Heon still has the burden to demonstrate prejudice. As noted by the Court, the post-conviction court did not reach that issue because of its finding of adequate performance. Therefore, I would remand for the court to consider whether Heon was prejudiced.2

. To demonstrate prejudice, Heon had to show that there was a reasonable possibility that he would have insisted on going to trial but for his attorney's performance. See Laferriere v. State, 1997 ME 169, ¶ 8, 697 A.2d 1301, 1305. At the post-conviction hearing, Heon testified he had a "discrepancy" with his attorney over pleading guilty to two aggravated assault charges and that he told his attorney that he was not guilly on one of the charges. This statement, if credible, may be enough to establish prejudice.