State v. Adams

184 A.3d 875

STATE of Maine

v.Danny L. ADAMS

Docket: And–17–319

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Argued: March 7, 2018

Decided: April 26, 2018

Rory A. McNamara, Esq. (orally), Drake Law, LLC, Berwick, for appellant Danny L. Adams

Janet T. Mills, Attorney General, and Donald W. Macomber, Asst. Atty. Gen. (orally), Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee State of Maine

Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.

MEAD, J.

[¶ 1] Danny L. Adams appeals from a judgment of conviction of manslaughter (Class A), 17–A M.R.S. § 203(1)(A) (2017), entered by the trial court (Androscoggin County, MG Kennedy, J. ) following his unconditional open guilty plea.¹ Adams contends that his plea was involuntary because he was coerced, in violation of his constitutional rights against self-incrimination,² to accept the truth of all of the facts recited by the State at the plea hearing held pursuant to M.R.U. Crim. P. 11. He further contends that he should not be required to show cause as to why his appeal should not be dismissed pursuant to State v. Huntley , 676 A.2d 501 (Me. 1996), and its progeny, which hold that a defendant may not appeal from a conviction entered upon his plea of guilty except in certain circumstances. Adams did not move to withdraw his unconditional plea before the court imposed the sentence and does not assert that the trial court lacked jurisdiction or that it imposed an excessive, cruel, or unusual sentence. We dismiss the appeal. See id. at 503 ; State v. Plummer , 2008 ME 22, ¶ 3, 939 A.2d 687.

I. BACKGROUND

[¶ 2] The relevant facts are procedural and are not disputed. In February 2015, Adams was charged by indictment with murder, 17–A M.R.S. § 201(1)(B) (2017), and manslaughter (Class A), 17–A M.R.S. § 203(1)(A), following the death of his infant son. Two attorneys were appointed to represent him. Following pretrial motions, a jury trial was scheduled for February 17, 2017.

[¶ 3] On February 8, 2017, Adams appeared with counsel and entered an unconditional open guilty plea to the manslaughter count; the State later dismissed the murder charge. See M.R.U. Crim. P. 11. At the Rule 11 hearing, after Adams explicitly waived his right to remain silent and the court admonished him to "listen carefully," the State recited the evidence that it expected to present at trial, which included Adams's statements to police officers that numerous bruises on the child's forehead and around his mouth likely resulted from him (Adams) forcefully putting the baby's pacifier in his mouth two or three times, holding it there by putting the palm of his hand on the pacifier and spreading his fingers across the child's face, and then putting the child face down in his crib with the pacifier inserted and holding him down against the mattress.

[¶ 4] Adams's counsel told the court that the State's recitation was consistent with the discovery. The court then engaged in a colloquy with Adams:

COURT: And do you have anything that you would like to correct about what was just said?

ADAMS: No. No, Your Honor.

Q: And have you had enough time to speak with your attorney about this matter?

A: Yes, Your Honor.

Q: Has he done the things that you have asked him to do in terms of representing you?

A: Yes, Your Honor.

Q: Are you satisfied with his services?

A: Yes, Your Honor.

Q: Are you pleading guilty today because you are guilty?

A: Yes, Your Honor.

The court found that the plea was made voluntarily and accepted it. It set the matter for sentencing following its receipt of sentencing memoranda from the parties.

[¶ 5] In chambers at the sentencing hearing almost five months later, the court shared the State's concern that Adams's sentencing memorandum differed significantly from the State's recitation of facts at the Rule 11 hearing, principally in suggesting that the bruises on the baby's face were the result of Adams's resuscitation efforts and not his death-producing conduct. Following a discussion about the specific conduct for which Adams was accepting responsibility and whether his admitted conduct continued to support his guilty plea to a charge of manslaughter, the court recessed the chambers conference so that Adams's attorneys could speak to him before returning for further discussions.

[¶ 6] When the chambers conference resumed, Adams's attorney said that after meeting with him, "we confirmed again today what we understood before today, that Danny Adams is taking responsibility for causing his son's death. He indeed has pled guilty to this charge. He is responsible for his son's death. He did cause his son's death ... as he agreed to the facts presented in the Rule 11 previously.... To the extent that [a medical] report implies ... in any kind of way at all that Danny Adams's conduct was not the cause of the child's death, then we would reject that ...." After confirming with defense counsel that Adams wished to proceed with sentencing, the court convened a hearing in the courtroom.

[¶ 7] At that hearing, asserting that "[a]t the time of the Rule 11, the defendant admitted to the following facts," the State again recited that Adams had inflicted the bruises on the child when he caused the child's death, concluding by saying that "those injuries, contrary to the defendant's claim in his sentencing memo, were not the result of resuscitative efforts," but rather "conduct that the defendant pled guilty [to]." The State pointed to Adams's conduct as one factor in support of its recommended sentence of twenty-five years to the Department of Corrections, with all but seventeen years suspended, and six years of probation. Defense counsel made an extensive presentation of mitigating facts, but acknowledged that Adams "was, as the State has described ... completely negligent, completely reckless," although "[h]e didn't intend to cause [the child's] death." Addressing the court directly, Adams said, "I did do it. I'm not denying any of that. I take full responsibility for what I did. Everything I did that night and the night before was horrible."

[¶ 8] As it began its sentencing analysis the court asked rhetorically, "[W]hat is it that the defendant did?" and then outlined in detail its understanding of the evidence. After confirming its accuracy with defense counsel, the court addressed Adams:

COURT: Mr. Adams, at the time you entered your guilty plea to the charge of manslaughter, were you aware that was the information the State would ... provide to the Court?

ADAMS: Yes, ma'am.

Q: Mr. Adams, having heard again the evidence the State would present if this matter were to go to trial, is there anything that you would like to correct?

A: No, ma'am.

Q: [D]id anyone make any threats or promises to you to get you to change your plea from not guilty to guilty?

A: No, ma'am.

Q: [A]re you pleading guilty today because you are guilty?

A: Yes, ma'am.

Q: And having pled guilty, do you wish to maintain your guilt and go forward with sentencing today?

A: Yes, ma'am.

Q: Are you making that decision voluntarily?

A: Yes, ma'am.

Q: Meaning that it is of your own free will?

A: Yes, ma'am.

[¶ 9] The court completed its sentencing analysis, arriving at a basic sentence of eighteen years; a maximum sentence of twenty years; and a final sentence of twenty years' imprisonment, with all but fifteen years suspended, and six years of probation. See 17–A M.R.S. § 1252–C (2017).

[¶ 10] Adams timely appealed and filed an application to appeal from the sentence. On July 27, 2017, citing Huntley , 676 A.2d at 503, we ordered Adams to show cause within fourteen days as to why his direct appeal from a guilty plea should not be dismissed. After Adams filed a response, we ordered that the appeal would proceed in the usual course and directed the parties to address in their briefs whether a criminal defendant has any constitutional, statutory, or rule-based right to appeal from a conviction following a guilty plea where the defendant knows of no valid basis for such an appeal.³ By order dated August 24, 2017, the Sentence Review Panel denied Adams leave to appeal from the sentence.

II. DISCUSSION

[¶ 11] In Huntley , we said that

[a] conviction after a guilty plea involves no decision by the court regarding the defendant's criminal guilt and therefore provides no source of decisional error by the court regarding criminal guilt. No direct appeal pursuant to 15 M.R.S.A. § 2115 (Supp. 1995)^{[4 ]} asserting errors in the determination of criminal guilt may be taken from a conviction after a guilty plea (other than a conditional guilty plea entered pursuant to M.R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2)^{[5 ]}), 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 are collateral and may be pursued only by post-conviction review ....

676 A.2d at 503 ; see State v. Gach , 2006 ME 82, ¶ 9, 901 A.2d 184 (same). In this case, Adams pleaded guilty unconditionally, did not move to withdraw his plea,⁶ and does not contend that the court lacked jurisdiction or that it imposed an unconstitutional sentence. Accordingly, his direct appeal must be dismissed.

[¶ 12] Huntley applies even when, as here, a defendant contends that the court violated his constitutional rights at the time he entered a guilty plea.⁷ In Plummer , considering the defendant's contention that the trial court violated his due process rights in accepting his guilty plea and imposing sentence, we held that

Plummer alleges neither a jurisdictional infirmity, nor excessive, cruel, or unusual punishment. His guilty plea was entered unconditionally, and he made no motion to withdraw his plea prior to

...