by Sam Rutherford

The Supreme Court of Mississippi held that a defendant’s guilty plea to two forged prescription drug charges was not knowing and voluntary because he was not informed of his status as a habitual offender and the corresponding mandatory sentences that flow therefrom.

Background

In 2019, Soweto Ronnell Love pleaded guilty to one count of acquiring or obtaining a controlled substance by forged prescription and another count of attempting to acquire or obtain possession of a controlled substance by forged prescription. The guilty plea paperwork Love signed stated that he agreed to “plead guilty to the charge(s) of Forged Prescription—2 counts in violation of Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-144.” The document further stated that Love faced a maximum sentence of five years’ imprisonment and a $1,000 fine on each count, with a minimum of 1 year imprisonment and a $0 fine each. The trial court confirmed at the change of plea hearing that Love understood this maximum possible sentence. Nothing in the plea document or the court’s colloquy informed Love that he faced sentencing as a habitual offender.

In October 2020, the trial court sentenced Love to five years in prison and a $1,000 fine on each count. The prison sentences were imposed consecutively to one another for a total of 10 years in prison. This sentence was based on Love’s status as a habitual offender as charged in the original indictment.

Love filed a pro se motion for post-conviction relief (“PCR motion”), arguing that the court failed to establish a factual basis for the plea and failed to inform him of the maximum and minimum sentences he faced by pleading guilty. Love also requested an evidentiary hearing on his motion.

The trial court denied the motion without a hearing, concluding that the plea hearing record reflected “that the State established a factual basis for the charges against Love … [and] the minimum and maximum sentence that Love could receive for each charge that he was pleading guilty to[.]” The Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in a divided opinion, and the Mississippi Supreme Court granted certiorari review. Love proceeded pro se before both courts.

Analysis

The Court granted review in Love’s case to determine whether he had knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty to being a habitual offender when he pleaded guilty to the two counts of forged prescription drug charges, both of which the Court resolved under the Mississippi Rules of Criminal Procedure (“MRCrP”). To resolve these issues, the Court first determined whether Love’s plea was voluntary and, second, whether the State established a proper factual basis for the plea.

The MRCrP require courts to ensure a guilty plea is “voluntarily and intelligently made …” and this “showing … must appear in the record.” MRCrP 15.3(c). “[I]t is the duty of the trial court to address the defendant personally in open court to inquire and determine …” that he “understands the nature and consequences of the plea, and the maximum and minimum penalties provided by law….” MRCrP 15.3(d)(2).

The Court explained that Love’s guilty plea was not voluntary under this standard because the trial court “incorrectly informed Love of the minimum penalty he faced under Mississippi Code Section 99-19-81.” According to the Court, the pre-2018 version of that statute applied in Love’s case, and the trial “court was accordingly required to sentence Love to a minimum of five years on each count upon its acceptance of Love’s pleading guilty as a habitual offender.” However, both the plea document and the trial court’s colloquy informed Love that the minimum sentence he faced was only one year in prison, the Court noted. Thus, the Court concluded that this error rendered his plea involuntary under MRCrP 15.3. See Harris v. State, 527 So. 2d 647 (Miss. 1988); Vittitoe v. State, 556 So. 2d 1062 (Miss. 1990).

Importantly, this fact alone did not entitled Love to relief because the Mississippi Supreme Court has previously held that the failure to inform a defendant about a minimum sentence is subject to harmless error review. Simpson v. State, 678 So. 2d 712 (Miss. 1996). Such an error is harmless if the State can show the failure to inform the defendant of the minimum sentence did not affect his or her decision to plead guilty. Id.

The Court determined that the error in Love’s case was not harmless because nothing in the record indicated he understood he was pleading guilty to being a habitual offender. Instead, both the plea document and the trial court’s colloquy indisputably showed that while he “was aware of the standard concept of being sentenced as a habitual offender,” nothing showed that he “knew that he or acknowledged that he was pleading guilty as a habitual offender.” Thus, the Court ruled that the error caused an injustice sufficient to warrant relief on plain error review because “Love pled guilty as a habitual offender with a ‘full understanding’ of his plea’s consequences.” Quoting Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969).

The Court also determined that the State failed to establish a sufficient factual basis for Love’s plea. The MRCrP also require trial courts to determine … that there is a factual basis for [a guilty] plea.” MRCrP 15.3(c). While the “elements of a sufficient factual basis are indeed flexible, ‘what is ultimately required is there must be enough that the court may say with confidence the prosecution could prove the accused guilty of the crime charged.’” Quoting Burrough v. State, 9 So. 3d 368 (Miss. 2009).

The trial court failed to ensure a sufficient factual basis in Love’s case because the State did not “mention any of Love’s previous felony convictions when establishing its factual basis given that the State had amended the indictment to charge Love as a habitual offender,” according to the Court. This failure “sows further doubt as to whether Love voluntarily pled guilty as a habitual offender” and reinforced its “conclusion that Love was making his decision to plead guilty based on incorrect, inadequate, insufficient information from the outset,” the Court stated.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Court reversed the trial court’s denial of Love’s PCR motion and remanded the case for “an evidentiary hearing on whether Love voluntarily pled guilty as a habitual offender.” See: Love v. State, 391 So. 3d 1170 (Miss. 2024). 

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login