From this article about Shania Twain’s stalker: http://www.torontosun.com/2011/12/14/shania-stalker-appeals-guilty-plea
Has there ever been a case in Canadian law where a criminal defendant successfully appealed his own guilty plea? That sounds downright unusual to me!
It happens under US law, too, not all that frequently but not an incredibly rare event, either.
In the United States, as a general principle a guilty plea waives all non- jurisdictional claims for appeal. But the plea itself can be challenged – for example, the defendant might claim he was never advised that he had a right to have the charges against him decide by a jury, or that he was coerced into entering his plea.
To guard against that, a judge in the US will typically engage in an on-the-record discussion with the accused before accepting the plea, known as a colloquy, in which he walks the accused through a series of questions:
“You understand that you have a right to a trial by jury, and that by entering a plea of guilty, you are giving up that right?”
“You understand that the prosecution must prove each and every element of the crime against you beyond a reasonable doubt, and by pleading guilty you are giving up your right to require that they do this?”
“You understand that by pleading guilty, this court may sentence you to xxxxxxx?”
And so on. In addition to the colloquy, the judge must establish, on the record, the factual basis for the plea – some statement of evidence apart from the accused’s plea upon which the plea would rest. Typically this is met by requiring a proffer from the prosecutor as to the basic evidence he would present if there were a trial, sufficient to show guilt.
The failure to engage in a complete colloquy can create grounds to withdraw a guilty plea, as can the lack of a factual predicate for the plea. And if the court refuses to permit a defendant to withdraw his plea, the defendant can appeal that denial.
Can a person appeal on the grounds that he knowingly made a false guilty plea?
Getting into TV law, but here’s a scenario. Let’s say John beats his wife Mary. Mary can’t take it anymore and commits suicide by setting the house on fire. The police investigate and discover John’s history of abuse. They suspect that Mary’s death was murder not suicide and they arrest John.
John meanwhile is distraught by Mary’s death. Her suicide caused him to realize how terrible he acted towards her. And while he didn’t kill her, he feels guilty for all the abuse he gave her over the years and for driving her to suicide. So he pleads guilty to her murder even though he’s actually innocent.
But in prison, John decides that there are better ways to atone for his sins than suffering through a false imprisonment. So he publicly admits he made a false guilty plea and appeals his sentence.
Can he legally do this or is his guilty plea irrevocable? Is the withdrawal of his guilty plea likely to be sufficient grounds for an appeal?
In Ohio, a guilty plea entered under those circumstances would most likely stand unless the defendant can show that he was somehow unaware of (1) his rights or (2) the direct (but not necessarily indirect) consequences of his plea, which is why most judges and magistrates are careful to ensure full compliance with Crim.R. 11 (specifying the procedure to be followed in taking a guilty or no contest plea). I know some judges who will specifically ask counsel, or unrepresented defendants, if they’re satisfied that Crim.R. 11 has been complied with. The answer “Yes” will close the door to virtually any later misgivings by the defendant.
I’m following this thread. My friend recently pleaded guilty to a drunk driving charge simply because he couldn’t get a lawyer. Legal aid wouldn’t help him (he made $11 too much last year to qualify for their help) and he couldn’t find a lawyer who would give him the time of day for less than $5000-10000. The helpful folks at the court advised him to plead guilty and he did, so now he has no license for a year and cannot work.
I’d love to help him fight this if it’s not too late. There were extenuating circumstances (namely fleeing from an abusive relationship) that could have got him a reduced sentence if he had actually been able to plead his case.
It’s unusual, but not unknown. In Adgey v. The Queen, [1975] 2 SCR 426, the Supreme Court upheld a decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal to allow an accused to appeal his conviction based on a guilty plea:
[QUOTE=Dickson J.]
Counsel for the Crown submitted that the test to be applied was that formulated by Avory J. in R. v. Forde.
A plea of guilty having been recorded, this Court can only entertain an appeal against conviction if it appears (1) That the appellant did not appreciate the nature of the charge, or did not intend to admit that he was guilty of it; or (2) That upon the admitted facts he could not in law have been convicted of the offence charged.
With respect, in my view this defines the rule too narrowly. I see no reason why the Court’s right to permit a withdrawal of a plea of guilty should be necessarily limited to the “admitted” facts. Statements made in the course of the inquiry following a guilty plea may, although not admitted by the Crown, justify the Court in rejecting the guilty plea and proceeding to trial.
This Court in The Queen v. Bamsey, at p. 298, held that an accused may change his plea if he can satisfy the Appeal Court “that there are valid grounds for his being permitted to do so.” It would be unwise to attempt to define all that which might be embraced within the phrase “valid grounds”. I have indicated above some of the circumstances which might justify the Court in permitting a change of plea. The examples given are not intended to be exhaustive.
[/QUOTE]
Interesting! But maybe I’m reading the case incorrectly – doesn’t it say the appeal was dismissed? I.e. “Held (Spence and Laskin JJ. dissenting): The appeal should be dismissed.” I was wondering about cases where the appeal was successful (unlike Dr. Palumbo’s, I predict).
The accused appealed to an intermidiet appellate court, which allowed the same.THe Crown then appealed to Her Majesty’s Supreme Court in Canada which dismissed the appeal.