State v. Watson

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court affirmed Eric Watson’s convictions after concluding that his guilty plea was sufficiently removed from a judge’s inappropriate recommendation to accept the State’s offer to remain voluntary. The court emphasized that trial judges must refrain from advising defendants, directly or indirectly, about the wisdom of pleading guilty.

Holdings

1. Watson's guilty plea was not involuntary because it was sufficiently removed from the presiding judge's remarks to attenuate any coercive effect; Watson obtained new counsel, consulted with counsel, and later affirmed orally and in writing that he was pleading freely and voluntarily.
2. Trial judges must refrain from offering defendants any advice, direct or implied, about the wisdom of pleading guilty.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the criminal presiding judge's comments advising Watson to accept the State's offer and referring to the possibility of double the jail time rendered his later guilty plea involuntary.
2. Whether trial judges may offer defendants direct or implied advice about the wisdom of pleading guilty.

Disposition

affirmed