Greene v. Commonwealth

475 S.W.3d 626 (Ky. 2015) · Supreme Court of Kentucky · December 17, 2015

Summary

The Kentucky Supreme Court reviewed the denial of Marcus D. Greene’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea under Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure 8.10. Greene alleged that counsel gave him inaccurate advice about jail-time credit, but the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding no reasonable probability of prejudice and affirmed the judgment.

Court
Supreme Court of Kentucky
Writing for the Court
Chief Justice Minton; Minton, C.J.; Abramson, J.; Cunningham, J.; Keller, J.; Noble, J.; Venters, J.
Jurisdiction
Kentucky
Decision date
December 17, 2015
Procedural posture
Greene appealed as a matter of right from the trial court's denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his pre-sentencing Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure 8.10 motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
Standard of review
A pre-judgment motion to withdraw a voluntary guilty plea under RCr 8.10 is reviewed for abuse of discretion. The trial court's ruling will not be disturbed unless it is arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by legal principles.
Precedential value
Published Kentucky Supreme Court opinion; precedential.
Parties
Marcus D. Greene v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

plea bargainingineffective assistancecriminal procedurestandard of reviewappellate procedure

Practice areas

criminal procedurecriminal defenseplea bargainingineffective assistance of counselappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. What standard of review applies to the denial of a pre-sentencing motion to withdraw a voluntary guilty plea under RCr 8.10 when the motion alleges ineffective assistance of counsel?
  2. Whether Greene established that counsel provided deficient advice concerning jail-time credit and that, absent the advice, there was a reasonable probability he would not have pleaded guilty.
  3. Whether the alleged misunderstanding concerning jail-time credit rendered Greene's plea involuntary.

Holdings

  1. The denial of a pre-judgment motion to withdraw a voluntary guilty plea under RCr 8.10 is reviewed for abuse of discretion, even when the motion is based on ineffective assistance of counsel.
  2. Although Greene may have received erroneous advice concerning jail-time credit, he did not establish a reasonable probability that, with correct information, he would have rejected the plea and proceeded to trial; therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding no prejudice.
  3. Greene's alleged misunderstanding concerning jail-time credit did not render his guilty plea involuntary because jail-time credit was not equivalent to awareness of the full range of penalties or another direct consequence that would invalidate the plea.

Key quotations

Instead, the proper yardstick for our review in this case is a determination of whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Greene’s motion. (630)
Instead, we simply must ask if Greene were given the correct information from the outset, would he have nonetheless accepted the Commonwealth’s bargain. (632)

Factual background

Greene was indicted on multiple serious felony charges, including two counts of capital murder, while he was on parole. His parole was revoked, and he spent nearly three years in prison awaiting trial on the new charges. During plea negotiations, Greene repeatedly asked whether that time would be credited against the sentence in the present case, and counsel allegedly gave him inaccurate advice. After entering an Alford plea and other guilty pleas, Greene reviewed the presentencing investigation report, learned that the time would not be credited as he expected, and sought to withdraw his plea before final sentencing.

Procedural history

Greene pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement after counsel allegedly advised him that time spent in prison after parole revocation would be credited against the sentence in the present case. After reviewing the presentencing investigation report, Greene moved to withdraw his plea before final sentencing. The trial court appointed new counsel, held an evidentiary hearing, found that Greene may have received inaccurate advice but was not prejudiced, denied the motion, and imposed sentence. The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…