Court Opinion

ID: 9759500
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:18:30.855835+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:02.366506
License: Public Domain

LARSEN, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent.
This case has been beaten to death through motions, appeals and remands. At the rate that the Majority keeps nursing this case along, it will be around in the year 2000. I would affirm and in support thereof, cite the lower court’s (the Honorable Albert G. Blakey, III) opinion:
The principal attack upon appellate counsel, and the issue on which new counsel has supplemented the pro se petition is the claim that appellate counsel did not fully and properly attack the colloquy that preceded the acceptance of the guilty plea. Once again, we believe that this issue had been litigated and resolved. We note that the . [Supreme Court] Opinion which affirmed judgment referred to “an extensive and thorough colloquy” and contained the following conclusion:
“The record and particularly the colloquy at the time of the plea reveal a thorough and conscientious attempt by the court, counsel and the district attorney to make sure that the plea was intelligent and with full understanding.”
Under the guise of an effectiveness argument, we do not favor admitting present counsel to reopen the subject and advance new ideas why the colloquy was insufficient.