Joe Weldon v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
• Decided: July 20, 2023
• Docket: A23A0980
• Status: Published

Opinion

SECOND DIVISION MERCIER, C. J., MILLER, P. J., and HODGES, J.

NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. https://www.gaappeals.us/rules

July 20, 2023

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A23A0980. WELDON v. THE STATE.

MILLER, Presiding Judge.

Joe Weldon appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion to withdraw

guilty plea. On appeal, he argues that the trial court abused its discretion by denying

the motion because there was evidence of his “heightened emotional state” during the

plea proceedings, and therefore his Alford1plea was not freely and voluntarily entered.

Finding that the trial court committed no abuse of discretion, we affirm the denial of

Weldon’s motion to withdraw guilty plea.

In connection with two separate indictments, Weldon pleaded guilty to seven

counts of violating the Street Gang Terrorism and Prevention Act, one count of

criminal attempt to commit armed robbery, one count of aggravated battery, and one

1 North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U. S. 25 (91 SCt 160, 27 LE2d 162) (1970). count of influencing a witness. During the plea hearing, Weldon testified under oath

that he had reviewed the charges with his attorney; that he was not under the

influence of any drugs, alcohol, or medications; and that he desired to plead guilty in

his best interest because he believed that there was a substantial likelihood that he

could be convicted at trial. He affirmed that he had not been threatened, coerced, or

promised anything in exchange for his guilty plea and that he was entering the plea

freely and voluntarily. Weldon also indicated that he had signed the plea proceeding

record, which he had reviewed with his attorney, and that he understood the various

rights that he was surrendering by pleading guilty. After Weldon informed the trial

court that he had no questions about the proceedings, the court accepted his Alford

plea. Weldon received a 40-year sentence, with the first 15 years to be served in

confinement, and the balance to be served on probation. Weldon later filed a motion

for new trial, partly claiming that his plea was not freely and voluntarily entered. The

trial court denied the motion after a hearing, and Weldon now appeals.

In his sole enumeration of error, Weldon claims that the trial court abused its

discretion when it denied his motion to withdraw guilty plea because there was

testimony showing that his plea was not freely and voluntarily entered due to his

heightened emotional state. We reject this argument and conclude that the trial court

2 did not abuse its discretion in determining that Weldon’s plea was freely, voluntarily,

and intelligently entered.

“After sentencing, a defendant may withdraw a guilty plea only to correct a

manifest injustice, such as where the defendant was denied effective assistance of

counsel, or the guilty plea was entered involuntarily or without an understanding of

the nature of the charges.” (Citation omitted.) Walton v. State, 361 Ga. App. 536 (864

SE2d 701) (2021). “A decision on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is a matter for

the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent manifest

abuse.” (Citation omitted.) Id.

To determine whether a guilty plea is valid, the record must show that the defendant understood the plea, the nature of the charges, and the constitutional rights that he is relinquishing. The State has the burden on direct review of establishing that the plea was entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to withdraw a guilty plea if the record supports the trial court’s determination that a plea was made knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily, and without coercion. Where the evidence at issue is in conflict, the credibility of witnesses is for the trial court to determine.

Powell v. State, 309 Ga. 523, 524-525 (1) (847 SE2d 338) (2020).

3 Here, the record supports the trial court’s determination that Weldon entered

his guilty plea freely, voluntarily, and intelligently, and we discern no manifest abuse

of discretion in the trial court’s denial of Weldon’s motion to withdraw. During the

plea proceedings, the trial court specifically advised Weldon that he did not have to

plead guilty if he did not want to do so. Weldon affirmed that he wanted to plead

guilty and that he had not been coerced into entering the plea. Although Weldon later

testified at the motion hearing that he felt “pressured” to enter the plea and that he

was “out of it because [he] was crying [and] everything was emotional,” he agreed

that he did not mention feeling pressured during the plea proceedings. He also

testified that he was being truthful during the plea proceedings when he stated that

his plea was being freely and voluntarily entered and that he wanted to plead guilty.

While acknowledging Weldon’s emotional state during the plea proceedings,

Weldon’s plea counsel explained at the motion hearing that it was Weldon’s decision

to plead guilty after she spoke with him about various pre-trial evidentiary rulings and

their potential impact on the outcome of his trial. She insisted that she did not coerce

him to enter the plea and that Weldon “understood what he was doing” when he

pleaded guilty.

4 In denying the motion, the trial court considered the transcript of the plea

proceedings and the testimony at the motion hearing, and the court specifically

discredited Weldon’s testimony that he had felt pressured to enter a guilty plea and

found it not credible. Given the record, the trial court was authorized to discredit

Weldon’s claim of feeling pressured and conclude that his plea was freely,

voluntarily, and intelligently entered. See Powell, supra, 309 Ga. at 525-526 (1)

(affirming the denial of the motion to withdraw where the defendant was “emotional”

during the plea proceedings, but his counsel testified that he seemed to understand the

form and asked no questions, and the trial court discredited the defendant’s testimony

that he did not understand the plea proceedings); DeToma v. State, 296 Ga. 90, 92-93

(1) (765 SE2d 596) (2014) (guilty plea was valid despite defendant’s display of

“considerable emotion” during the plea hearing and his claim that he felt “pressured”

to plead guilty).

Discerning no abuse of discretion, we affirm the trial court’s denial of

Weldon’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

Judgment affirmed. Mercier, C. J., and Hodges, J., concur.