Petrich, C.J.
Defendant appeals his convictions after pleading guilty to attempted first degree robbery, eluding a [44] police officer, and second degree assault. He also appeals his habitual criminal sentencing. The issues involving the substantive offenses are whether defendant demonstrated that a withdrawal of his guilty plea was necessary to correct a manifest injustice and whether the State's notice of intent to file a habitual criminal allegation fettered defendant's right to testify in the trial of the substantive charges.
In the habitual criminal proceedings, the defendant challenged the court's admission of prior convictions, raising the issues of whether the State met its burden of proving that the defendant's guilty pleas to earlier charges were made knowingly and voluntarily and whether the factual allegations charging a criminal offense for which the defendant was found guilty in a neighboring state would amount to a felony in Washington. We affirm defendant's conviction, but we reverse his habitual criminal sentencing and remand for appropriate sentencing.
After unsuccessfully attempting to rob a pharmacy on April 22, 1980, defendant and an accomplice fled in an automobile. Defendant, ignoring directions by police to stop, fired a gun at the pursuing police vehicle. Nevertheless, defendant was soon captured and charged by information with the above mentioned crimes. He pleaded not guilty. On September 11, about a week after the State filed notice of its intent to file a habitual criminal allegation, and after the court apprised him of his rights and of the consequences involved, defendant changed his plea to guilty. Thereafter the State filed a supplemental information alleging that defendant was a habitual criminal and should be given an enhanced sentence.
At trial on the habitual criminal charges, defendant challenged the supplemental information. He claimed the alleged prior convictions based on guilty pleas did not support habitual criminal status because he had not known the nature and consequences of pleading guilty to the underlying, prior charges, and furthermore, that the factual allegation charging him with a crime in Idaho did not amount to a felony in Washington. The court ruled against him. On [45] December 15, he also moved to have his guilty pleas to the current charges withdrawn. He argued that at the time he pleaded guilty he had been taking methadone by prescription and that the methadone created a "hangover" effect so that he did not fully understand the consequences of his action. The court also denied this motion. A jury trial was then held on the supplemental information; the jury found that defendant had been convicted of three prior felonies. Defendant now appeals the judgment and sentence.
We first consider defendant's claim that the court erred by not allowing him to withdraw his guilty plea. According to CrR 4.2(f), a trial court shall allow a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea whenever that withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice, i.e., an injustice that is obvious, directly observable, and not obscure. State v. Taylor, 83 Wn.2d 594, 521 P.2d 699 (1974); State v. Armstead, 13 Wn. App. 59, 533 P.2d 147 (1975). The manifest injustice requirement is a demanding standard because of the many safeguards surrounding defendant when he pleaded guilty. State v. Taylor, supra.
Here, in accord with CrR 4.2(d), defendant was fully advised by the court of his constitutional rights, the consequences of a guilty plea, and the nature of the crimes. In accord with CrR 4.2(g), defendant signed a written guilty plea which also informed him of his rights. There is every reason to believe defendant made his plea voluntarily and knowingly.
Defendant, however, claims one basis of manifest injustice, namely, that his plea was involuntary because of the methadone-created confusion. Such claim is suspect. One week after his guilty plea defendant wrote a letter to the county commissioner stating that he pleaded guilty so that his sentences would run concurrently. Such letter is clearly written, and it suggests that defendant had thought through the tactical reasons for his plea. We must conclude, therefore, that defendant's bald claim of methadone-induced confusion does not meet the demanding standard required to show manifest injustice. See also State v. Arm-[46] stead, supra (no involuntary guilty plea where defendant claimed he was "drunk off barbiturates").
We next turn to defendant's claim that the State's notice of intent to file a habitual criminal allegation fettered his constitutional right to testify in his own behalf. As defendant articulates it, he was forced to elect whether he must defend one or more of the current charges by use of his own testimony, knowing that any admission of a prior conviction as impeachment could be used as proof in the habitual criminal proceeding, or remain silent.
For support, defendant turns to People v. Chavez, 621 P.2d 1362 (Colo.), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1028, 69 L. Ed. 2d 398, 101 S. Ct. 3019 (1981). Anticipating cross examination about his prior criminal record, Chavez moved to exclude any testimony he might give in defense of the substantive charges from the habitual criminal proceeding. Colorado then interpreted its statutes to say that if a defendant admitted prior convictions, the state was "relieved of the necessity for proving any fact so admitted" in connection with habitual criminal proceedings. The trial court denied the motion by Chavez, who then chose not to testify. Chavez was acquitted on the habitual criminal charges, but found guilty on the substantive charges. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that the trial court's ruling permitted use of admissions of prior convictions obtained by way of impeachment in the trial of the substantive charges as evidence in the habitual criminal proceedings, thus impermissibly burdening the defendant's right to testify on his own behalf; such use relieved the prosecution of its burden in the habitual criminal proceedings of proving the prior convictions beyond a reasonable doubt.
Chavez is inapposite to our facts. By pleading guilty, Hystad chose not to defend himself, and he waived inter alia his right to testify, to remain silent, and to confront his accusers. Defendant, therefore, was not faced with the choice confronting Chavez. We additionally note that here, in contrast to the Colorado law under consideration in Chavez, the introduction of prior convictions in a criminal [47] trial solely for impeachment purposes does not absolve the prosecution from proving such prior convictions beyond a reasonable doubt in a habitual criminal proceeding. State v. Holsworth, 93 Wn,2d 148, 607 P.2d 845 (1980). The prosecution, then, is not relieved of its heavy burden of proof.
We finally turn to defendant's claim that the court erred in allowing three prior convictions to be used in the habitual criminal proceeding. We need only consider his Pierce County and Idaho convictions.1
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Petrich, C.J.
Defendant appeals his convictions after pleading guilty to attempted first degree robbery, eluding a [44] police officer, and second degree assault. He also appeals his habitual criminal sentencing. The issues involving the substantive offenses are whether defendant demonstrated that a withdrawal of his guilty plea was necessary to correct a manifest injustice and whether the State's notice of intent to file a habitual criminal allegation fettered defendant's right to testify in the trial of the substantive charges.
In the habitual criminal proceedings, the defendant challenged the court's admission of prior convictions, raising the issues of whether the State met its burden of proving that the defendant's guilty pleas to earlier charges were made knowingly and voluntarily and whether the factual allegations charging a criminal offense for which the defendant was found guilty in a neighboring state would amount to a felony in Washington. We affirm defendant's conviction, but we reverse his habitual criminal sentencing and remand for appropriate sentencing.
After unsuccessfully attempting to rob a pharmacy on April 22, 1980, defendant and an accomplice fled in an automobile. Defendant, ignoring directions by police to stop, fired a gun at the pursuing police vehicle. Nevertheless, defendant was soon captured and charged by information with the above mentioned crimes. He pleaded not guilty. On September 11, about a week after the State filed notice of its intent to file a habitual criminal allegation, and after the court apprised him of his rights and of the consequences involved, defendant changed his plea to guilty. Thereafter the State filed a supplemental information alleging that defendant was a habitual criminal and should be given an enhanced sentence.
At trial on the habitual criminal charges, defendant challenged the supplemental information. He claimed the alleged prior convictions based on guilty pleas did not support habitual criminal status because he had not known the nature and consequences of pleading guilty to the underlying, prior charges, and furthermore, that the factual allegation charging him with a crime in Idaho did not amount to a felony in Washington. The court ruled against him. On [45] December 15, he also moved to have his guilty pleas to the current charges withdrawn. He argued that at the time he pleaded guilty he had been taking methadone by prescription and that the methadone created a "hangover" effect so that he did not fully understand the consequences of his action. The court also denied this motion. A jury trial was then held on the supplemental information; the jury found that defendant had been convicted of three prior felonies. Defendant now appeals the judgment and sentence.
We first consider defendant's claim that the court erred by not allowing him to withdraw his guilty plea. According to CrR 4.2(f), a trial court shall allow a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea whenever that withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice, i.e., an injustice that is obvious, directly observable, and not obscure. State v. Taylor, 83 Wn.2d 594, 521 P.2d 699 (1974); State v. Armstead, 13 Wn. App. 59, 533 P.2d 147 (1975). The manifest injustice requirement is a demanding standard because of the many safeguards surrounding defendant when he pleaded guilty. State v. Taylor, supra.
Here, in accord with CrR 4.2(d), defendant was fully advised by the court of his constitutional rights, the consequences of a guilty plea, and the nature of the crimes. In accord with CrR 4.2(g), defendant signed a written guilty plea which also informed him of his rights. There is every reason to believe defendant made his plea voluntarily and knowingly.
Defendant, however, claims one basis of manifest injustice, namely, that his plea was involuntary because of the methadone-created confusion. Such claim is suspect. One week after his guilty plea defendant wrote a letter to the county commissioner stating that he pleaded guilty so that his sentences would run concurrently. Such letter is clearly written, and it suggests that defendant had thought through the tactical reasons for his plea. We must conclude, therefore, that defendant's bald claim of methadone-induced confusion does not meet the demanding standard required to show manifest injustice. See also State v. Arm-[46] stead, supra (no involuntary guilty plea where defendant claimed he was "drunk off barbiturates").
We next turn to defendant's claim that the State's notice of intent to file a habitual criminal allegation fettered his constitutional right to testify in his own behalf. As defendant articulates it, he was forced to elect whether he must defend one or more of the current charges by use of his own testimony, knowing that any admission of a prior conviction as impeachment could be used as proof in the habitual criminal proceeding, or remain silent.
For support, defendant turns to People v. Chavez, 621 P.2d 1362 (Colo.), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1028, 69 L. Ed. 2d 398, 101 S. Ct. 3019 (1981). Anticipating cross examination about his prior criminal record, Chavez moved to exclude any testimony he might give in defense of the substantive charges from the habitual criminal proceeding. Colorado then interpreted its statutes to say that if a defendant admitted prior convictions, the state was "relieved of the necessity for proving any fact so admitted" in connection with habitual criminal proceedings. The trial court denied the motion by Chavez, who then chose not to testify. Chavez was acquitted on the habitual criminal charges, but found guilty on the substantive charges. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that the trial court's ruling permitted use of admissions of prior convictions obtained by way of impeachment in the trial of the substantive charges as evidence in the habitual criminal proceedings, thus impermissibly burdening the defendant's right to testify on his own behalf; such use relieved the prosecution of its burden in the habitual criminal proceedings of proving the prior convictions beyond a reasonable doubt.
Chavez is inapposite to our facts. By pleading guilty, Hystad chose not to defend himself, and he waived inter alia his right to testify, to remain silent, and to confront his accusers. Defendant, therefore, was not faced with the choice confronting Chavez. We additionally note that here, in contrast to the Colorado law under consideration in Chavez, the introduction of prior convictions in a criminal [47] trial solely for impeachment purposes does not absolve the prosecution from proving such prior convictions beyond a reasonable doubt in a habitual criminal proceeding. State v. Holsworth, 93 Wn,2d 148, 607 P.2d 845 (1980). The prosecution, then, is not relieved of its heavy burden of proof.
We finally turn to defendant's claim that the court erred in allowing three prior convictions to be used in the habitual criminal proceeding. We need only consider his Pierce County and Idaho convictions.1
On February 15, 1972, the Pierce County court read to defendant two counts of an information charging Kathleen New and defendant with possessing certain controlled substances.2 Defendant pleaded guilty to the charges. In the habitual criminal proceedings, however, he claimed that his pleas were involuntary because he was not adequately apprised of the nature of the offense.
A conviction which rests upon an involuntary or unknowing plea of guilty is constitutionally invalid. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 23 L. Ed. 2d 274, 89 S. Ct. 1709 (1969). Use of the invalid conviction to support habitual [48] criminal status is barred by Holsworth, which places the burden on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the validity of an earlier conviction once the defendant challenges its use.
Probably the most important requirement of Boykin is that the defendant receive "real notice of the true nature of the charge against him, the first and most universally recognized requirement of due process". Smith v. O'Grady, 312 U.S. 329, 334, 85 L. Ed. 859, 61 S. Ct. 572 (1941), quoted in Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637, 645, 49 L. Ed. 2d 108, 96 S. Ct. 2253 (1976); State v. Holsworth, 93 Wn.2d 148, 156, 607 P.2d 845 (1980). In particular, this requires that the defendant be aware of the basic elements of the offense charged. See Henderson v. Morgan, supra at 646-47; In re Keene, [95 Wn.2d 203, 622 P.2d 360 (1980)] at 208-09; State v. Holsworth, supra at 153 n.3.
State v. Chervenell, 99 Wn.2d 309, 317-18, 662 P.2d 836 (1983). For there to be a truly voluntary guilty plea, the defendant must possess an understanding of the law in relation to the facts. McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 22 L. Ed. 2d 418, 89 S. Ct. 1166 (1969).
After carefully reviewing the record of defendant's Pierce County plea, we hold defendant was not adequately informed of the acts which constituted the alleged crime. The court's reference to the details of the alleged crime was simply that "you are charged with the possession of a controlled substance." The declaration that one is in "possession of a controlled substance" is more a conclusion than a statement of fact.
Factual circumstances suggesting culpability for the offense of possessing a controlled substance may very well be innocent conduct. The very nature of the charge creates a substantial potential for the defendant's misunderstanding of the relationship between the facts and the crime charged.
Actual possession wherein the accused is in actual, physical custody of the controlled substance is simple enough. However, a person may be guilty of possession by possess[49] ing the controlled substance in law, which may be constructive possession. Constructive possession is established when the person charged has dominion and control over either the drug or the premises where the drug is found. State v. Callahan, 77 Wn.2d 27, 459 P.2d 400 (1969). However, mere proximity to the drugs is not enough to establish constructive possession. State v. Mathews, 4 Wn. App. 653, 484 P.2d 942 (1971). The fact of temporary residence, personal possessions on the premises, or knowledge of the presence of the drug without more is insufficient to show dominion and control necessary to establish constructive possession of the drug. State v. Davis, 16 Wn. App. 657, 558 P.2d 263 (1977). Furthermore, even though neither intent nor guilty knowledge is an element of the crime of possession of a controlled substance, if the defendant can affirmatively establish that his "possession" was unwitting "he had no 'possession' for which the law will convict him." State v. Cleppe, 96 Wn.2d 373, 635 P.2d 435 (1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1006 (1982).
A greater potential for misunderstanding of the relationship of the facts and the law defining the offense exists here because the defendant was charged along with a codefendant. Defendant may well have been charged as an accomplice, yet mere presence at the scene of a crime is not enough to find a defendant as an accomplice. More is required. State v. Alford, 25 Wn. App. 661, 611 P.2d 1268 (1980).
Defendant may have mistakenly considered himself guilty even though his possession of the drug was unwitting. If the basis of the charge is on accomplice liability, defendant may have considered himself guilty merely because he was present when his codefendant either actually or constructively possessed the drug. If the charge was based on constructive possession he may have mistakenly believed himself guilty because of his mere proximity to the drug or because of his temporary residence on the premises when the drug was found. Without some clarification of the facts the State relies upon to establish the defendant's [50] guilt, there is no way for us to know whether defendant could determine if his acts, in fact, constituted a crime.
Because this plea was pre-Wood v. Morris, 87 Wn.2d 501, 554 P.2d 1032 (1976), the State could have introduced extrinsic evidence to show that defendant was properly informed of the acts which he allegedly committed. It did not do so. Thus, because the State did not prove the voluntariness of the Pierce County plea, the resulting conviction does not satisfy the requirements of a conviction for purposes of the habitual criminal proceeding.
Defendant also pleaded guilty on June 5, 1974, before an Idaho court to the charge of first degree burglary. The test for determining the sufficiency of an out-of-state conviction is whether the charging instrument stated facts which would have necessarily proved all the elements of a felony in Washington. State v. Rinier, 93 Wn.2d 309, 609 P.2d 1358 (1980). The Idaho information simply charged defendant with entering a building at night with the intent to commit larceny. Because it does not inform us whether this building was a dwelling or whether defendant was armed or engaged in the various activities enumerated in the Washington statute, the defendant could not be charged with the crime of first degree burglary under former RCW 9.19.010 then in effect in Washington. In 1974, second degree burglary in Washington involved "breaking" and "entering" a building. Former RCW 9.19.020. However, because the Idaho information does not indicate that defendant gained entry forcibly or by means amounting to a break or breaking as defined in former RCW 9.01.010(20), there are no facts suggesting the required element of "breaking." The court below, therefore, improperly allowed the jury to consider the Idaho conviction.
The failure to establish that defendant was guilty of two felony convictions, as required by RCW 9.92.090, invalidates the habitual criminal determination. We therefore affirm the underlying conviction, but we must reverse the habitual criminal sentencing and remand for the appropriate sentencing for the substantive offenses of attempted [51] first degree robbery, eluding a police officer and second degree assault.
Petrie, J., concurs.