Court Opinion

ID: 9665639
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:53:29.660134+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:17.224379
License: Public Domain

McGehee, C. J.,
specially concurring:
I think that it is a wholesome rule for the Court to adopt, in view of the wording of the statute under which the appellant was indicted, that the responsibility he placed upon the trial judge to determine for himself whether or not an accused fully understands the nature and the consequences of a plea of guilty, and I therefore concur in the result reached by the Court in this case. However, I am thoroughly convinced that the district attorney had explained to the defendant, in substance, before he entered his plea of guilty that such a plea would mean that he would have to serve a sentence in the state penitentiary. The district attorney so testified at the hearing on the motion of the accused to be allowed to withdraw his plea of guilty and enter a plea of not guilty; that the circuit judge was fully warranted in believing the testimony of the district attorney, whom he knew to be an honorable man and telling the truth, when the district attorney testified that he had fully explained the result of a plea of guilty; and that the Judge was also justified in believing the county attorney when he denied having advised the appellant to plead guilty.