Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
McDougal v. State
Citations: 526 So. 2d 897; 1988 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 430; 1988 WL 48423Docket: 8 Div. 948
Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama; April 26, 1988; Alabama; State Appellate Court
In 1985, Howard McDougal was convicted of first-degree assault and sentenced to twenty years, but the conviction was reversed on appeal. In 1986, he pleaded guilty to first-degree assault and received a fifteen-year sentence, which he did not appeal. In 1987, he filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis, challenging his guilty plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel, specifically the claim that he was misinformed about the minimum sentence. The court found that while McDougal was incorrectly informed that the minimum sentence was ten years, the correct minimum was two years. Despite this inaccuracy, the court affirmed the denial of his coram nobis petition, citing several findings: 1. It was stipulated that McDougal was told the minimum sentence for a jury conviction was ten years, while the plea form incorrectly stated ten years instead of the actual minimum of two years. 2. The attorney representing McDougal, Larry D. Smith, had negotiated a plea deal with the district attorney, resulting in a fifteen-year sentence, which was the least he could secure. 3. Smith effectively represented McDougal, properly advising him about the plea and the potential range of sentencing if he went to trial. 4. There was no coercion involved in McDougal's decision to plead guilty, and Smith did not misrepresent the sentencing possibilities. Ultimately, the court determined that McDougal’s legal representation was adequate, and he was properly advised regarding his plea and sentencing options. Larry Smith, the attorney for Howard McDougal, adequately informed him about potential sentencing outcomes if he were tried and found guilty. Despite an error in the Request to Enter a Guilty Plea form regarding the minimum sentence, Smith correctly communicated that McDougal faced up to twenty years if convicted by a jury. Smith also advised that the district attorney would only accept a First Degree Assault charge with a fifteen-year sentence, not a Second Degree Assault charge. The Court found that Smith conducted a thorough investigation, including visiting the accident scene and reviewing trial transcripts. The Court established that McDougal understood he had not been promised a minimum sentence and that he did not prepare the petition for Error Coram Nobis. Testimony indicated that McDougal was not coerced into his guilty plea and was fully aware of the charges and potential sentences. The Court ruled that the error in the plea form was harmless and did not infringe on McDougal's Sixth Amendment rights. Consequently, the Petition for Error Coram Nobis was denied. The Court distinguished this case from Pratte v. State, noting that McDougal received the agreed-upon bargain, and he did not seek to withdraw his plea in a timely manner. McDougal failed to demonstrate ineffective counsel, as he could not show that any alleged errors impacted his decision to plead guilty. The judgment of the circuit court was affirmed, with all judges concurring.