Court Opinion

ID: 9715338
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:00:48.187157+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:33.708315
License: Public Domain

GARRARD, Judge,
dissenting.
While I agree with the majority’s analysis concerning the laches defense, I dissent to its determination that the guilty plea was not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered.
Nothing in the record discloses that Smith was misinformed about the charges, was under any disabling influence or that his plea was not otherwise properly entertained. Indeed, it was the result of a plea bargain.
The majority accepts Smith’s hindsight that had he known the victims were unavailable he might not have pleaded guilty. Then again, he might not have wished to risk a burglary conviction.
I believe the circumstances here fall far short of the proof necessary to establish that counsel provided ineffective assistance. A variety of factors including time, cost and the accused’s own wishes enter into the initial appraisal of a case. I find it unrealistic to suggest that in every case counsel must fully investigate or attempt to interview all the witnesses before he permits a client to plead guilty, yet in the absence of notice of some defect or the demands' of the client, that appears to be the effect of the majority opinion. Counsel was given the state’s file and he apparently gave it to Smith. Smith raised no question at the time. Instead, he apparently wanted the plea bargain. I would find his plea was properly accepted.