Jones v. State

Horney, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The defendant plead guilty to a charge of rape of a teenage girh under one indictment and to a charge of common assault on the same occasion of another teen-age girl under a separate indictment, and was sentenced to life imprisonment in the Penitentiary for the more serious offense and to ten years on the lesser charge. On this appeal, the defendant, claiming that his court-appointed counsel had advised him that if he plead guilty he would receive a sentence of twenty years, now contends that the court owed him a duty to explain more fully the possible consequences of the plea of guilty when his counsel requested the court to inquire of the defendant whether he had been advised of his rights and the consequences of his pleas. The record is clear that the court, in compliance with the request, carefully examined the defendant, and that the defendant— who after observation and psychiatric examination had been found to be sociopathic but not psychotic and therefore “able to participate in the defense of his case”—in response to the court’s questions stated in a normal and straightforward manner that he had been apprised of his rights, that he knew he had a right to plead not guilty and the further right to be tried by a jury, and that he had made the guilty pleas freely and with full understanding of the consequences thereof.

On the other hand, there is nothing in the record to show that the defendant or his counsel for him had ever objected or complained at any time, either before, during or after trial, that the court had erroneously accepted the guilty pleas. Nor did the defendant file a motion in arrest of judgment and sentence or even suggest that the trial court had not fully performed its duty to him. When the frank answers made by the defendant to the questions propounded by the court are weighed and considered, it is difficult to conceive how or why the lower court could or should have done more than it did under the circumstances in this case to satisfy itself that the defendant under ¹⁴⁴ stood the consequences of his election to enter guilty pleas. Ordinarily, a plea of guilty by a defendant represented by counsel and capable of participating in his own defense is accepted as a matter of course. 14 Am.

Jur., Criminal Law, § 271. But in a capital case or other serious case, such as this, a trial court is required to be satisfied of the voluntary character of the plea and that the defendant understands the nature and effect of a plea of guilty. Lowe v. State, 111 Md. 1 , 73 Atl.