State v. Ruth

574 P.2d 1357, 98 Idaho 879, 1978 Ida. LEXIS 352

• Court: Idaho Supreme Court
• Decided: February 16, 1978
• Docket: 12280
• Status: Published

Opinions

McFADDEN, Justice.

Defendant-appellant Larry Allen Ruth appeals from a judgment finding him guilty of second degree murder and sentencing him to an indeterminate prison term not to exceed life. We affirm.

Appellant was charged with first degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon. The charges arose out of appellant’s participation, apparently while intoxicated, in a drunken brawl and barroom shooting that left one man dead and another wounded. To these charges appellant pleaded not guilty by reason of mental defect on September 5, 1975. Apparently his court-appointed counsel intended to rely on evidence, some of which is in the record, that, in the words of the superintendent of the Wyoming State Hospital where appellant had voluntarily committed himself earlier, he suffered from “alcohol addiction, severe” and an “explosive personality.”

Three weeks later, appellant changed his plea to guilty. In return, the prosecutor dismissed the assault charge and reduced the murder charge to second degree. The court accepted appellant’s guilty plea to second degree murder and ordered a presentence investigation. After receiving the pre-sentence report, the court sentenced appellant to an indeterminate term not to exceed life imprisonment.

On appeal, appellant asserts two errors. The first is that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Appellant maintains that his appointed counsel advised him to plead guilty to second degree murder and that such advice was clearly incompetent in light of overwhelming evidence of alcohol addiction so serious as to render him incapable of the mens rea for either degree of murder. The second issue appellant raises on appeal is that the court erred in accepting his plea because he did not understand its significance.

On the first issue, the record contains no evidence supporting appellant’s claims. The only direct evidence on this issue comes from appellant’s trial counsel. At the change of plea hearing, in the presence of appellant, his trial counsel told the court:

“ * * * I told Mr. Ruth that I had planned to file certain preliminary motions prior to the trial based on my knowledge of the law in the State of Idaho. I asked him — at that time he indicated he wished to enter a plea to a reduced charge and I told him that it was my advice that he wait until I was able to file my motions and await a decision of the court on the motions before he decided to enter such a plea. And, in spite of my advice and in spite of my personal opinions on the case, Mr. Ruth decided to enter a plea at this time against the advice of counsel. Now, I don’t believe that he decided to do this because he was dissatisfied, although I would ask the court to inquire into that aspect of it, but he felt that, although he didn’t agree with the evidence presented, he personally could not see any way to defend against it, and that was in spite of what [co-counsell and myself talked to him about.”

With that assertion appellant made no objection or protest.

In light of these statements in the hearing transcript, appellant’s allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel is meritless.

On the basis of the record before us, we also find meritless appellant’s claim that the court erred in accepting his plea without insuring that he understood its significance. The record shows that the court made every reasonable attempt to make certain that appellant’s plea was entered voluntarily and with a full understanding of its import.¹ On the basis of the trial court record, appellant’s second claim is groundless.

The conviction is affirmed.

SHEPARD, C. J., and DONALDSON and BISTLINE, JJ., concur.

1 . “THE COURT: You have indicated you desire to plead guilty to this?

MR. RUTH: Yes, I do.

THE COURT: And, you understand this?

THE COURT: You know the amount of the penalty that you can receive?

THE COURT: Any promises or threats or anything that has caused you to want to do this?

MR. RUTH: No, sir.

THE COURT: You have been advised by your attorney of your rights and his evaluation of your particular case?

MR. RUTH: Yes.

THE COURT: It’s still your decision?

MR. RUTH: Yes, it is.

******

THE COURT: Is there any question in your mind of what’s being done? Do you have any doubts or misunderstandings of what’s being done here?

MR. RUTH: No, sir, I don’t.

THE COURT: You’re fully aware that you might be going to the penitentiary for life?

MR. RUTH: Yes, sir, I do.

THE COURT: You have listened to the prosecutor and you’ve listened to your own attorney and from all of this you’re making up your own mind?

MR. RUTH: Yes, I am.

THE COURT: And, there’s no doubt about it?

MR. RUTH: There’s no doubt.

THE COURT: Do you feel like any constitutional rights have been violated, any of yours?

MR. RUTH: No. No, sir.

THE COURT: You’ve discussed everything with your attorney, as near as you can tell?

MR. RUTH: Yes, sir, I have.

THE COURT: As near as you know?

MR. RUTH: Yes, sir, I have.”