 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cofield v. State7/18/2000
Appeal From: Circuit Court of Barton County, Hon. C. David Darnold
Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Parrish and Shrum, JJ., concur.
Opinion:
Cecil G. Cofield ("Movant") pled guilty to the class D felony of driving while intoxicated ("DWI"). Sections 577.010, 577.023, RSMo 1994. The plea court sentenced Movant to five years' imprisonment.
Movant thereafter commenced the instant proceeding by filing a motion to vacate the conviction and sentence per Rule 24.035. The motion court denied relief after an evidentiary hearing. Movant brings this appeal from the motion court's judgment.
Movant's sole claim of error is that his guilty plea was "entered unknowingly and unintelligently" because the plea court did not accurately state the "available minimum range of punishment" at the guilty plea proceeding.
Section 577.023.4, RSMo 1994, reads:
"No court shall suspend the imposition of sentence as to a . . . persistent offender under this section nor sentence such person to pay a fine in lieu of a term of imprisonment . . . nor shall such person be eligible for parole or probation until he has served a minimum of forty-eight consecutive hours' imprisonment, unless as a condition of such parole or probation such person performs at least ten days of community service under the supervision of the court in those jurisdictions which have a recognized program for community service."
During the guilty plea proceeding, the plea court addressed Movant. The dialogue included this:
"Q And you understand the range of punishment on a Class D felony is minimum one day, maximum five years, and up to $5,000 fine, or both the fine and imprisonment?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now . . . you understand in order for this to be a Class D felony, they have to show that you have two or more prior convictions or pleas of guilty for alcoholic related offenses before it can be a Class D felony?
A Yes, sir.
Q And do you believe the state can prove up two or more?
A Yes, sir."
Later in the guilty plea proceeding, after the prosecutor described what the State's evidence would show, the prosecutor said:
"One other thing I just want to make clear. I think the minimum punishment on this case is two days because of the one statute that requires a minimum 48 hours incarceration when there is a prior DWI. . . . ou quoted the minimum is one day, and I think it's actually two. I just wanted to make sure that's clear on the record."
As there was no plea agreement, the plea court explained to Movant that each side would be "free to argue" whatever they chose regarding the sentence. Then, this:
"THE COURT: And the Court is going to be free to do anything all the way up to -- to the maximum or down to the minimums?
MR. RATZLAFF[ ]: That's correct.
Q Is that what you understand, Mr. Cofield?
A Yes, sir."
The plea court ordered a presentence investigation and scheduled sentencing for a later date.
At the sentencing hearing (some nine weeks after the guilty plea), the plea court recalled the offense to which Movant pled guilty was a class D felony and there was no plea agreement. This dialogue ensued:
"THE COURT: Which means . . . I could sentence him to five years and $5000 fine, or I could go all the way down to, I guess, probation or a fine?
MR. RATZLAFF: Right."
Later in the sentencing hearing, the plea court commented on the presentence investigation report:
"If I've counted right, since 1946, he's
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Missouri DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|