Alford plea in Louisiana

2013This court has held an Alford plea puts the trial court “on notice that a substantial basis of guilt must be placed into the record.” State v. J.S., 10-1233, p. 2 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/11/11), 63 So.3d 1185, 1188 (citing State v. Villarreal, 99-827 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/16/00) , 759 So.2d 126, 129 , writ denied, 00-1175 (La.3/16/01), 786 So.2d 745 ). 14At the plea hearing in the case at bar, the trial court never asked the State to put a factual basis for the charge on the record.

2010In a case involving an Alford plea, the record must contain “strong evidence of actual guilt.” Id., 400 U.S. at 38 , 91 S.Ct. at 167 ; State v. McCoil, supra; State v. Villarreal, 1999-827 (La.App. 5th Cir.02/16/00), 759 So.2d 126, 129 , writ denied, 2000-1175 (La.03/16/01), 786 So.2d 745 .

2018He understood that by entering an Alford plea he was waiving his rights as set out in Boykin , 395 U.S. 238 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 .

2018He understood that by entering an Alford plea he was waiving his rights as set out in Boykin , 395 U.S. 238 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 .

2018App. 5 Cir. 6/28/94), 639 So.2d 860 , 864.

2015This Court has recognized that where there is an Alford plea, “constitutional due process requires that the record contain ‘strong evidence of actual guilt.’ ” State v. Bailey, 94-76 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/28/94) , 639 So.2d 860, 864 .

2020Ed. 2d 162 (1970), known as an Alford plea, and State v. Crosby, 338 So. 2d 584 (1976), known as a Crosby plea.

2011Prior to trial on January 27, 2008, the defendant withdrew his prior plea and entered an Alford plea, 1 reserving his right to challenge all pretrial rulings pursuant to State v. Crosby, 338 So.2d 584 (La.1976).

2011State v. Calhoun, 96-0786 (La.5/20/97), 694 So.2d 909, 915 .

2000Id. at 914 .

2021App. 5 Cir. 05/23/18), 248 So.3d 683 , 686 n.7.

2018App. 5 Cir. 5/23/18), 248 So.3d 683 , 686 n.7 ; State v. Bailey , 94-76 (La.

2019In a case involving a bona fide Alford plea, the record must contain “strong evidence of actual guilt.” Alford, 400 U.S. at 38 , 91 S. Ct. 2d at 167; State v. Orman, supra. As noted by this Court in State v. McLemore, 619 So. 2d 210 (La.

2018As noted by this Court in State v. McLemore , 619 So.2d 210 (La.

2014A definition of "a 'best interest’ or Alford plea, which derives from the United States Supreme Court case of North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), is one in which the defendant [has] pled guilty while maintaining his innocence.” State v. Stevenson, 45,371, pp. 4-5 (La.App. 2 Cir. 6/23/10), 41 So.3d 1273, 1276 .

2012In a case involving an Alford plea, the record must contain “strong evidence of actual guilt.” Id., 400 U.S. at 38 , 91 S.Ct. at 167 ; State v. McCoil, supra; State v. Stevenson, 45,371, pp. 4-5 (La.App. 2 Cir. 6/23/10), 41 So.3d 1273, 1277 .

2023App. 4 Cir. 2/6/02), 809 So.2d 1127, 113 , “[a] defendant's decision to plead guilty when confronted with the choice between a trial, knowing that the evidence substantially negates his claim of innocence, and a plea of guilty, which limits the maximum penalty he may receive, has been called a “best interests plea,” or simply an “Alford plea.”’ In support of this claim, Defendant cites to a portion of the Boykin transcript that merely shows an “off-the-record bench conference.” However, the transcript does not show that Defendant or his attorney used the words or referenced an “Alford plea;” a

2005This Court discussed this type of plea in State v. Jackson, 01-1268 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/6/02) , 809 So.2d 1127 : In Alford , the court resolved the issue of whether a guilty plea can be accepted when it is accompanied by protestations of innocence.

2019Id.

2019Id.

2015Jones, 975 So.2d at 22-27 . |iaIn the present case, the record shows that defendant was aware of the nature of the offenses to which he was pleading.

2013See State v. Corzo, 04-791 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/15/05) ; 896 So.2d 1101, 1102 . .See also State v. Jones, 07-512 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/27/07) ; 975 So.2d 21, 26-27 , writ denied, 08-0325 (La.9/26/08); 992 So.2d 982 , where this Court found that the evidence presented at the hearing on the motion to suppress identification demonstrated strong evidence of the defendant's actual guilt and, therefore, supported his Alford plea. .

2013State v. Sutton, 04-88 (La.App. 8 Cir. 7/7/04), 879 So.2d 419 , unit denied, 04-2617 (La.6/24/05), 904 So.2d 730 .

2009State v. Sutton, 04-88 (La.App. 3 Cir. 7/7/04) , 879 So.2d 419 , writ denied, 04-2617 (La.6/24/05), 904 So.2d 730 .

2013State v. Sutton, 04-88 (La.App. 8 Cir. 7/7/04), 879 So.2d 419 , unit denied, 04-2617 (La.6/24/05), 904 So.2d 730 .

2009State v. Sutton, 04-88 (La.App. 3 Cir. 7/7/04) , 879 So.2d 419 , writ denied, 04-2617 (La.6/24/05), 904 So.2d 730 .

2010I was not the one that cut the lock, probably the guy that called the police was-my neighbor, he cut the lock, but I did cut my lights back in.” This statement raises the issue of whether a valid Alford plea was entered simply by virtue of that statement, or whether the statement should be accepted or interpreted as a nolo contendere plea, which would not put the trial court on notice that it must ascertain a factual basis for the plea. |6In Villarreal, supra, the court made the procedural distinction between an Alford plea and a nolo contendere and stated as follows: In State v. Walters, 591

2000In State v. Walters, 591 So.2d 1352, 1355 (La.App. 4th Cir.1991), writ denied, 584 So.2d 1171 (La.1991), the court, citing Alford, found that "... an `Alford' plea and a plea of `nolo contendere' have no significant constitutional distinctions and have the identical legal consequences." A major procedural distinction between the two, however, is that a nolo contendere plea, unlike a plea accompanied by a claim of innocence, does not put the trial court on notice that it must ascertain a factual basis to support the plea.

2002Moreover, even assuming that relator had protested his innocence when he entered his guilty plea and further assuming that in all cases involving a bona fide Alford plea the record "before the judge [must] contain[ ] strong evidence of actual guilt," id., 400 U.S. at 38 , 91 S.Ct. at 167 , the standard under Alford is not whether the state may prevail at trial by establishing the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt and negating all possible defenses, but rather whether the strength of the factual basis, coupled with the other circumstances of the plea, reflect that the pl

1998Moreover, even assuming that relator had protested his innocence when he entered his guilty plea and further assuming that in all cases involving a bona fide Alford plea the record "before the judge [must] contain[] strong evidence of actual guilt," id., 400 U.S. at 38 , 91 S.Ct. at 167 , the standard under Alford is not whether the state may prevail at trial by establishing the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt and negating all possible defenses, but rather whether the strength of the factual basis, coupled with the other circumstances of the plea, reflect that the ple

2002Alford, supra; Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969).” Allen, 99-2579 at p. 10; 781 So.2d at 94 , quoting from the per curiam opinion in State v. Bowie, 96-2987, pp. 1-2 (La. 1/31/97), 687 So.2d 369 .

2001The requirements for a valid acceptance of an Alford plea were stated in a per curiam decision, State v. Bowie, 96-2987, pp. 1-2 (La.1/31/97), 687 So.2d 369 : The potential strength of the state's case and of any defenses reasonably suggested by the evidence may represent significant factors for the district court to weigh in accepting a proffered guilty plea which does not constitute an express admission of guilt, North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37-38 , 91 S.Ct. 160, 167-68 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), but the court does not necessarily commit constitutional error by accepting a guilty ple

1993State v. Powell, 584 So.2d 1252 (La.App. 2d Cir.1991); State v. Linear, 600 So.2d 113 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1992), J.

1993State v. Jordan, 619 So.2d 648 (La.App. 2d Cir.1993), citing Linear, supra, and State v. Powell, 584 So.2d 1252 (La.App. 2d Cir.1991).

2023Id., 40 So.3d at 196-97 .3 Although the State did not provide a factual basis for the crime of second degree rape during the guilty plea colloquy herein, Mr. Fernandez did not proclaim his innocence, and he did not 3 A plea accompanied by a claim of innocence is an Alford plea and puts the trial court on notice that it must ascertain a factual basis to support the plea.

2023Id., 40 So.3d at 196-97 .3 Although the State did not provide a factual basis for the crime of second degree rape during the guilty plea colloquy herein, Mr. Fernandez did not proclaim his innocence, and he did not 3 A plea accompanied by a claim of innocence is an Alford plea and puts the trial court on notice that it must ascertain a factual basis to support the plea.