Watkins v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Watkins v. State

594 So. 2d 249, 1992 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 70, 1992 WL 37410

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedJanuary 31, 1992

DocketCR 90-1500

StatusPublished

This text of 594 So. 2d 249 (Watkins v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Watkins v. State, 594 So. 2d 249, 1992 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 70, 1992 WL 37410 (Ala. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

JAMES H. FAULKNER, Retired Justice.

Joseph Lamar Watkins was indicted for the offenses of burglary in the third degree in violation of § 13A-7-7, Code of Alabama 1975, and receiving stolen property in the first degree in violation of § 13A-8-17, Code of Alabama 1975. Watkins’ application for youthful offender status was denied after hearing, and Watkins waived arraignment and entered a plea of not guilty to both offenses. Watkins thereafter withdrew his not guilty pleas and pleaded guilty to third degree burglary and receiving stolen property in the first degree. After conducting a colloquy with Watkins, the trial court accepted his guilty pleas and sentenced him to two concurrent split sentences of ten years, with three years each to be served concurrently in the penitentiary and two years each to be served concurrently on probation.

Watkins contends that his convictions must be reversed because there was no factual basis for his guilty pleas.

Watkins is precluded from raising this issue on appeal due to his failure to present the question first to the trial court by way of a timely objection, a motion to withdraw the pleas or a motion for new trial. Bennefield v. State, 552 So.2d 188 (Ala.Cr.App.1989); Willis v. State, 500 So.2d 1324 (Ala.Cr.App.1986).

The record fully supports a finding of sufficient factual basis for both guilty pleas. The record consists of an Ireland form pertaining to both guilty pleas and signed by Watkins, the trial judge, and trial counsel. In addition to the forms, the record shows that the trial court conducted a colloquy during which Watkins stated that his lawyer had explained to him the elements of the offenses and that he was pleading guilty because, in fact, he was guilty. See Bowens v. State, 570 So.2d 844, 846 (Ala.Cr.App.1990) (executed Ireland form coupled with colloquy sufficient to establish factual basis) and Mantoz v. State, 495 So.2d 120, 121 (Ala.Cr.App.1986) (executed Ireland form and colloquy wherein defendant stated that he was pleading guilty because he was guilty sufficient to establish factual basis).

The foregoing opinion was prepared by the Honorable JAMES H. FAULKNER, a former Supreme Court Justice, and his opinion is hereby adopted as that of the Court.

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

All Judges concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JAMES H. FAULKNER, Retired Justice.

Joseph Lamar Watkins was indicted for the offenses of burglary in the third degree in violation of § 13A-7-7, Code of Alabama 1975, and receiving stolen property in the first degree in violation of § 13A-8-17, Code of Alabama 1975. Watkins’ application for youthful offender status was denied after hearing, and Watkins waived arraignment and entered a plea of not guilty to both offenses. Watkins thereafter withdrew his not guilty pleas and pleaded guilty to third degree burglary and receiving stolen property in the first degree. After conducting a colloquy with Watkins, the trial court accepted his guilty pleas and sentenced him to two concurrent split sentences of ten years, with three years each to be served concurrently in the penitentiary and two years each to be served concurrently on probation.

Watkins contends that his convictions must be reversed because there was no factual basis for his guilty pleas.

Watkins is precluded from raising this issue on appeal due to his failure to present the question first to the trial court by way of a timely objection, a motion to withdraw the pleas or a motion for new trial. Bennefield v. State, 552 So.2d 188 (Ala.Cr.App.1989); Willis v. State, 500 So.2d 1324 (Ala.Cr.App.1986).

The record fully supports a finding of sufficient factual basis for both guilty pleas. The record consists of an Ireland form pertaining to both guilty pleas and signed by Watkins, the trial judge, and trial counsel. In addition to the forms, the record shows that the trial court conducted a colloquy during which Watkins stated that his lawyer had explained to him the elements of the offenses and that he was pleading guilty because, in fact, he was guilty. See Bowens v. State, 570 So.2d 844, 846 (Ala.Cr.App.1990) (executed Ireland form coupled with colloquy sufficient to establish factual basis) and Mantoz v. State, 495 So.2d 120, 121 (Ala.Cr.App.1986) (executed Ireland form and colloquy wherein defendant stated that he was pleading guilty because he was guilty sufficient to establish factual basis).

The foregoing opinion was prepared by the Honorable JAMES H. FAULKNER, a former Supreme Court Justice, and his opinion is hereby adopted as that of the Court.

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

All Judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

594 So. 2d 249, 1992 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 70, 1992 WL 37410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watkins-v-state-alacrimapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack