Priest v. State

Priest · Supreme Court of Georgia · September 16, 2025 · No. S25A0826

Summary

The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Julius Cerron Priest’s conviction and life sentence for felony murder following a negotiated guilty plea. On appeal, Priest contended that the trial court failed to establish a sufficient factual basis for his plea under Uniform Superior Court Rule 33.9 and improperly conditioned plea acceptance on his waiver of the statutory right to withdraw the plea prior to sentencing. The court found that the prosecutor’s factual proffer met the rule’s requirements and that Priest knowingly and voluntarily waived his statutory withdrawal right. The judgment was accordingly affirmed.

Court
Supreme Court of Georgia
Writing for the Court
Colvin, Justice
Jurisdiction
Georgia
Decision date
September 16, 2025
Docket number
S25A0826
Procedural posture
Priest appealed directly to the Supreme Court of Georgia from a felony-murder conviction and life sentence entered after his negotiated guilty plea.
Standard of review
The court reviewed the validity of the guilty-plea waiver and the trial court's compliance with Uniform Superior Court Rule 33.9 based on the record; the State bore the burden of establishing that the waiver was valid.
Precedential value
Published Georgia Supreme Court opinion
Parties
Julius Cerron Priest v. The State
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

plea bargainingcriminal proceduresentencingappellate procedurestandard of review

Practice areas

criminal lawcriminal procedureguilty pleasappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court violated Uniform Superior Court Rule 33.9 by accepting Priest's guilty plea without a sufficient factual basis.
  2. Whether Priest's statutory right to withdraw his guilty plea before sentencing was constitutional, unwaivable, or rendered involuntary by the trial court's acceptance of the waiver during the plea hearing.

Holdings

  1. The trial court satisfied USCR 33.9 because the rule requires the court to make itself aware of the factual basis for the plea, and the State's proffer, together with the court's certification, established a sufficient factual basis for felony murder predicated on aggravated assault.
  2. A defendant's statutory right under OCGA § 17-7-93(b) to withdraw a guilty plea before judgment is pronounced is waivable when the waiver is knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made. Priest validly waived the right.

Key quotations

But, as we have explained, this rule “requires nothing more than that the trial court make itself aware of the factual basis for the plea.” (6)
There is no Federal or State constitutional provision stating that a criminal defendant may withdraw his or her guilty plea as a matter of right at any time prior to sentence being pronounced. (10)
Properly understood, the record reflects that the trial judge explained Appellant’s right to withdraw to him; informed him that sentencing was imminent; and presented Appellant with the choice of whether to waive his right and proceed. (13)

Factual background

Priest and LaTonya Moore were charged with felony murder predicated on aggravated assault with a deadly weapon for the shooting death of Mark Frasier. At the plea hearing, the State proffered that witnesses heard Priest direct Moore to shoot Frasier, after which Moore shot Frasier multiple times. Frasier later died from complications resulting from the shooting. Priest pleaded guilty to felony murder and was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole.

Procedural history

A Clayton County grand jury indicted Priest and a co-indictee on multiple murder, aggravated-assault, and firearm-possession counts. Priest initially pleaded not guilty, then entered a negotiated guilty plea to felony murder predicated on aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole, merged the aggravated-assault count for sentencing, vacated the additional felony-murder count by operation of law, and nol prossed the remaining charges. Priest timely appealed, arguing that the plea lacked a sufficient factual basis and that the trial court improperly conditioned acceptance of the plea on waiver of his right to withdraw it before sentencing.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…