Court Opinion

ID: 9541774
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:28:32.408741+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:04:39.907213
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE CRAVEN, dissenting: The majority opinion correctly notes that the trial court totally failed to ascertain a factual basis for the defendant’s plea. There is no question here of substantial compliance with the requirements of Rule 402. Rather, the case is presented in a posture of total want of compliance. People v. Dudley, cited in the majority opinion, in my opinion, is not applicable here. In Dudley, the want of compliance was related to a requirement of the rule that the plea agreement be stated in open court. Although this requirement is found in Rule 402, it is not suggested that such requirement is constitutionally mandated. In my view,, a requirement that there be a factual basis for the plea, i.e., the establishment that a criminal offense was committed, and that the defendant did it, is constitutionally .mandated and a condition precedent to the acceptance of a plea of guilty. (Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 23 L.Ed.2d 274, 89 S.Ct. 1709; McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 22 L.Ed.2d 418, 89 S.Ct. 1166.) Although substantial compliance with Rule 402 is all that is 'required, a total failure upon the part of the trial court to comply with the requirements of that rule as to factual basis for the plea is grounds for reversal and remandment. As noted in McCarthy, the few minutes required to insure that every accused -is afforded the procedural safeguards mandated are well worth it. Compliance with that rule will help reduce the waste of judicial resources required to process the frivolous attacks on guilty plea convictions that are encouraged and are more difficult to dispose of when, as here, the record is totaHy inadequate.