Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

229 S.W.3d 49

Williams v. Commonwealth

Kentucky Supreme Court

Decided April 19, 2007

Kentucky Supreme Court · decided 2007-04-19

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently December 2017

6 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2007-04-19

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

CUNNINGHAM,

¶1Concurring Justice.

¶2I concur in the result but vigorously disagree with this Court’s apparently strong stance against any presumption in favor of the validity of guilty pleas. If RCr 8.10 does not provide in its language a presumption against withdrawal, it is nevertheless inherent within the very nature of the procedure.

¶3Counsel for the Appellant concedes that the federal rule provides a presumption against withdrawal but goes on to state that there is no presumption that exists in Kentucky law. However, no authority is provided for this proposition. The federal rule makes good common sense.

¶4First of all, whenever a defendant moves under RCr 8.10 to withdraw his or her guilty plea, the burden does not rest upon the Commonwealth to prove the validity of the plea. The burden is upon the defendant to at least provide the trial court with some reason why the request should be granted. Therefore, with the burden of proof lying with the defendant, there is inherent within this procedure a presumption of its validity.

¶5In the instant case, the trial judge provided solid reasoning for denying the defendant’s request to withdraw her guilty plea. Appellant’s argument seems to diminish the heavy importance and consequences of the guilty plea itself. By not affording a duly entered guilty plea the presumption of validity, this Court does the same.

¶6There has evolved over time an extensive colloquy for trial judges to ensure that all guilty pleas are made knowingly and voluntarily by a competent defendant.

¶7The trial court is required to make findings that the defendant is competent, that he or she understands their numerous constitutional rights, and that they voluntarily waive those rights and the plea is made *54voluntarily of their own free will and accord. In this writer’s opinion, the acceptance of a guilty plea of conviction carries with it the same solid conclusion as does a jury verdict of guilty. And while every trial judge has full discretion in regard to the withdrawal of such a plea, it is a decision which should not be taken lightly.

¶8Lastly, contrary to the inference given by counsel for Appellant, the setting aside of a guilty plea often carries with it heavy consequences. Juries are dismissed, witnesses are released, families assume closure, and a myriad of other developments are triggered by a plea of guilty. Thusly, I agree with the outcome of this case but would give valid and properly conducted and accepted guilty pleas a presumption of validity.

/229/sw3d/49 · .json · Public domain