State of Maine v. John P. Stevens , 2017 ME 30 ( 2017 )

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 2017 ME 30 Docket: Ken-16-129
Submitted
On Briefs: January 19, 2017
Decided: February 16, 2017
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.
STATE OF MAINE
v.
JOHN P. STEVENS
MEAD, J.
[¶1] John P. Stevens appeals from a judgment of conviction entered by
the trial court (Kennebec County, Jabar, J.) following his guilty plea to a charge
of receiving stolen property (Class C), 17-A M.R.S. § 359(1)(B)(6) (2016).
Stevens contends that in order to establish that his plea was voluntary as
required by M.R.U. Crim. P. 11(b)(2), the court was required to ask him if he
was aware of, and understood the consequences of, any plea negotiations that
may have preceded his plea. Because Stevens did not move to withdraw his
unconditional guilty plea, and does not contend that the trial court lacked
jurisdiction or that it imposed an unconstitutional sentence, we dismiss the
appeal.
2
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURE
[¶2] The July 2015 indictment charging Stevens with receiving stolen
property was based on an allegation that he sold copper wire belonging to
Central Maine Power Company knowing or believing that it had been stolen.
See 17-A M.R.S. § 359(1)(A) (2016). On the day of his trial, with a jury selected,
Stevens, assisted by counsel, unconditionally changed his plea to guilty. The
court conducted an inquiry pursuant to M.R.U. Crim. P. 11 and accepted the
open plea,1 which Stevens never moved to withdraw. At the sentencing hearing
six weeks later, the court entered judgment and sentenced Stevens to four
years’ imprisonment. Stevens also pleaded guilty to four separately-charged
misdemeanors and received concurrent sentences. He then appealed.
[¶3] The State filed an untimely brief and moved to dismiss the appeal
on the ground that Stevens cannot take a direct appeal from his guilty plea
absent a challenge to the court’s jurisdiction or the constitutionality of his
punishment. Stevens objected to the late filing and to the motion to dismiss.
We rejected the State’s brief and ordered that the motion to dismiss be
considered with the merits of the appeal.
1 As the court explained to Stevens, an “open” plea is entered when there is no proposed sentence
agreement between the State and the defendant and the sentence is determined by the court after
argument from the parties.
3
II. DISCUSSION
[¶4] A threshold issue before reaching the merits of Stevens’s appeal is
whether we will grant the State’s motion to dismiss. More than twenty years
ago we held that
[n]o direct appeal . . . asserting errors in the determination of
criminal guilt may be taken from a conviction after a guilty plea
(other than a conditional guilty plea . . .), except on grounds of
jurisdiction or excessive, cruel or unusual punishment, because
there is no decision by the court to appeal from. Challenges to a
conviction after a guilty plea on grounds of involuntariness of the
plea, lack of knowledgeability on the part of the defendant
regarding the consequences of his plea, ineffective assistance of
counsel, misrepresentation, coercion or duress in securing the plea,
the insanity of the pleader, or noncompliance with the
requirements of M.R. Crim. P. 11[2] are collateral and may be
pursued only by post-conviction review . . . .
State v. Huntley, 676 A.2d 501, 503 (Me. 1996) (citations omitted). See also
State v. Pfeil, 1998 ME 245, ¶ 7, 720 A.2d 573 (“The reason that post-conviction
review is appropriate and that an adequate review cannot be held on direct
appeal is . . . [that] an evidentiary hearing is necessary to develop a record from
which a court can determine whether the pleas were made knowingly and
voluntarily.”). Because the defendant in Huntley did not challenge the trial
2 The now-effective Maine Rule of Unified Criminal Procedure 11 is the same in all relevant
respects. See M.R.U. Crim. P. 11 committee advisory note, Dec. 2014.
4
court’s jurisdiction and did not assert that it had imposed an unconstitutional
punishment, we dismissed the appeal. Huntley, 676 A.2d at 503-04.
[¶5] In State v. Plummer, we reaffirmed our holding in Huntley, saying
that it applied “[i]n the absence of either a conditional guilty plea . . . or a motion
to withdraw the guilty plea before sentencing . . . unless the defendant
challenges the trial court’s jurisdiction, or argues that the trial court imposed
an excessive, cruel, or unusual punishment.” 2008 ME 22, ¶ 2, 939 A.2d 687 (citations omitted). Once again, because Plummer did not assert any of those
prerequisite infirmities, we dismissed the appeal. Id. ¶ 3; see also State v. Gach,
2006 ME 82, ¶ 9, 901 A.2d 184 (dismissing the appeal for the same reasons).
[¶6] Here Stevens pleaded guilty unconditionally, did not move to
withdraw his plea, and does not contend that the trial court lacked jurisdiction
or that it imposed an unconstitutional sentence. Accordingly, the remedy, if
any, for his contention that an incomplete Rule 11 proceeding led to an
involuntary plea lies in the post-conviction review process established by
15 M.R.S. §§ 2121-2132 (2016) and M.R.U. Crim. P. 65-75A. See Huntley,
676 A.2d at 503 (“Challenges to a conviction after a guilty plea on grounds of
involuntariness of the plea, lack of knowledgeability on the part of the defendant
regarding the consequences of his plea . . . or noncompliance with the
5
requirements of M.R. Crim. P. 11 are collateral and may be pursued only by
post-conviction review . . . .” (emphases added)).
The entry is:
Appeal dismissed.
N. Seth Levy, Esq., Brunswick, for appellant John P. Stevens
The State of Maine did not file a brief
Kennebec County Unified Criminal Docket docket number CR-2015-215
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY