A person accused of the crime must understand the consequences of pleading guilty or no contest to a crime. Mr. Corinthian Bricker was charged with aggravated battery, driving under the influence, and failure to present proof of insurance. State v. Bricker, No. 99,394, slip op. at 3 (Kan. June 3, 2011). He was driving in the early morning and struck another car, causing injuries to the woman in the other car. His blood alcohol concentration was over the legal limit. As such, he sought counsel. His counsel worked out a plea deal with the prosecution, where both side would recommend Mr. Bricker attend a bootcamp probation/rehabilitation program if he pled no contest to the charges. However, the deal also included that if bootcamp was not available, his sentence would total 36 months in prison.
The Importance of Planning for the Unexpected
After the plea was accepted in court and Mr. Bricker was sent for an evaluation by the bootcamp, he was found to be ineligible for medical reasons. He and his attorney had never discussed that medical issues could prevent him from being eligible for the bootcamp rehabilitation program. As a result, the judge sentenced Mr. Bricker to 36 months in prison.
Shortly after, Mr. Bricker hired a different attorney and sought to withdraw his plea. He claimed his previous attorney was ineffective because he “(1) failed to determine whether [Mr.] Bricker would be eligible for LCCC; and (2) failed to negotiate an ‘alternative resolution should Mr. Bricker be rejected’ by LCCC.” Id. at 6. However, after sentencing, Mr. Brinker had to show the agreement was manifestly unjust in order to withdraw his plea. At the hearing, the district court found he had not met his burden.
On appeal, the Court analyzes whether Mr. Bricker should be allowed to withdraw his plea due to counsel’s deficient performance. Applying the Strickland test, Mr. Bricker must show that “1) his counsel’s performance fell below the objective standard of reasonableness and 2) there is a reasonable probability that but for Furney’s errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). Mr. Bricker first claims that counsel’s failure to learn and advice of LCCC admission criteria was deficient performance. The court rejects this claim and finds that Mr. Bricker was never guaranteed admission to LCCC and had always understood there was a screening process. Therefore, counsel’s performance was not constitutionally deficient. Next, Mr. Bricker claims counsel’s failure to advise him of his option to withdraw his plea before sentencing is objectively unreasonable and constitutionally deficient. Here, the court agrees and finds that the “failure to advise a defendant of such an important right is difficult to consider as a deliberately chosen strategy.” Id. at 16. However, even after an error is found, Mr. Bricker must show the error prejudiced the outcome of his case. The court finds that if he had withdrawn his plea, he likely would have faced trial and incarceration. Therefore, the error did not undermine the outcome of his case. As a result, because Mr. Bricker did not meet the Strickland test, there is no manifest injustice, and his conviction is affirmed.
It is important to understand all of the consequences of pleading guilty and to have an experienced attorney who plans for unexpected consequences. To speak to an attorney today, contact Bell Folsom, P.A.