Court: Missouri Court of Appeals; April 24, 2012; Missouri; State Appellate Court
Clarence Dodson appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief related to his felony non-support conviction. Dodson contends that his guilty plea was involuntary because the court did not inform him, as required by Rule 24.02, that he would not be able to withdraw his plea if probation was denied. The court charged Dodson with failing to provide adequate support for his minor child from June 2008 to May 2009. During the plea hearing on January 11, 2010, Dodson's counsel and the State discussed a recommendation of a four-year sentence, clarifying that the decision on probation was solely up to the court, and Dodson acknowledged that no promises had been made regarding probation.
At sentencing on February 22, 2010, despite the State’s recommendation for a deferred sentence, the court imposed a four-year prison term. Following this, Dodson filed a motion to withdraw his plea on February 25, 2010, citing reasons including claims of actual innocence, reliance on an unspoken expectation of probation, and inaccuracies in a letter from the victim's mother. A hearing revealed that Dodson's counsel believed the plea implied probation, despite the absence of explicit terms due to the court's policies. The prosecutor maintained that the plea was strictly "four and defer," suggesting dissatisfaction with the court's decision rather than a valid claim for plea withdrawal. The appellate court ultimately reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.
The plea agreement in question was made under Rule 24.02(d)1(B), allowing the prosecutor to recommend a disposition while agreeing not to oppose the defendant's request, with the understanding that such recommendations are non-binding on the court. The court is required to inform the defendant that they cannot withdraw their plea if the court does not accept the recommendation. In this case, Dodson contended that he should have been allowed to withdraw his plea after the court denied his request for probation, claiming a violation of the plea agreement. He asserted that he was not properly advised that he could not withdraw his plea under these circumstances. The motion court held an evidentiary hearing where Dodson testified he believed he could withdraw his plea if probation was not granted and did not understand the implications of "four and defer." The motion court ultimately denied Dodson’s motion, concluding that the plea agreement was binding and therefore the court had no obligation to inform him regarding the inability to withdraw his plea. Dodson appealed, asserting that his due process rights were violated. The appellate court found the State's characterization of the plea agreement incorrect, reversing the motion court's decision and remanding the case for further proceedings, emphasizing that Rule 24.02(d)1(B) necessitates the court to provide the defendant with this crucial information regarding plea withdrawal.
The parties agreed that if Dodson pled guilty, the State would recommend a "four and defer" sentence, indicating a potential four-year imprisonment unless probation was granted. The term "defer" was clarified at a hearing, where the State confirmed it would not oppose Dodson's request for probation, leaving the decision to the court. Dodson argued that this agreement fell under Rule 24.02(d)1(B), which the State acknowledged during the hearing. He claimed his due process rights were violated because the plea court did not inform him that he could not withdraw his plea if probation was denied. The court found that the agreement was not truly binding, as the State's non-opposition to probation did not constitute a binding plea agreement, thus subjecting it to Rule 24.02(d)2. Despite the State's argument against a hybrid binding/non-binding agreement, the court concluded that any aspect of the plea agreement that falls under Rule 24.02(d)1(B) requires proper advisement per Rule 24.02(d)2. The plea court failed to notify Dodson that he could not withdraw his plea if probation was denied, rendering his plea unknowing and involuntary. Consequently, the motion court's denial of Dodson's post-conviction relief was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
Binding plea agreements imply that a defendant's plea is reliant on the terms agreed upon; if a court deviates from these terms, the defendant can withdraw the plea, presuming they would not have pled guilty without the agreement. Non-binding agreements, however, allow the court to reject the terms without impacting the plea's voluntariness, as the defendant cannot depend on uncertain terms subject to the court's discretion. In this case, Dodson contends his plea was based on a misunderstanding of the nature of his agreement, believing it to be binding and including a guaranteed probation term. He argues that had he been informed of his inability to withdraw his plea if probation was not granted, he would have opted for a trial instead. The motion court did not address whether Dodson was prejudiced by this lack of guidance, while the State claims there was no breach of agreement. However, Dodson is not alleging a breach but asserting that his plea was involuntary due to unclear terms regarding probation, which could have been clarified had he been properly advised.
