[236] Menschen v. Holmes, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 678, 32 Cal.4th 432 (2004) (The convictions are invalid because, at the time of the pleas, the Tribunal did not establish a sufficient factual basis to support the pleas, since it did not examine the defendant`s facts and did not cite any particular document as the source of the factual basis of the pleas). The trial judge did not discuss with the defendant the nature of the charges to which he pleaded guilty. This was not just an inadequate discussion, but a total failure to ensure the existence of an objective basis for the means. In this case, an automatic reversal is necessary. In a somewhat troubling decision, the Ninth Circuit held that when conducting a divisible analysis of the law, courts may essentially pay attention to the facts described in each document, provided that the prosecution and the accused`s counsel have established those facts as the basis for an admission of guilt. [237] The Court found that the non-citizen was convicted of a serious violent crime based on a conviction for false detention that can be committed by “violence, threat, fraud or deception.” [238] While the prosecution and the plea itself did not go beyond the language of the law, the document containing the factual basis of the plea described the crime in detail and showed that the false detention was committed by violent means. Forged checks written to a church bank account were not sufficiently related to interstate commerce to warrant a federal lawsuit for forgery. In the admission of guilt, insufficient evidence was found that the Church`s activities were “in” or “affecting” interstate commerce. The factual allegation contained in the admission of guilt was therefore not sufficient to support that confession. The American Bar Association, in its Criminal Justice Division, has adopted the following standard regarding the need for an evidence basis:[1] The defendant transported drugs to an apartment. He said he did not know what was in the packages, but pleaded guilty.
On the basis of the facts put forward by the prosecutor and accepted by the court, it was not said that the defendant knew what was in the packages and the defendant did not indicate that he knew what they contained. The plea of guilt was therefore unfounded and was overturned by the Fourth Circuit. 02 2014. 10 2022 In the 2008 book Criminal Procedure, author John M. Scheb pointed out that in the United States, a majority of states have taken steps to ensure that the cause of action is raised ex officio and based on facts. [2] Scheb wrote, “Most states have adopted similar trade rules to ensure that pleadings are voluntary and meet constitutional requirements.” [2] He explained that judges have some discretion in determining the voluntariness of the accused`s plea: “The rules on voluntariness and factual basis generally do not specify a specific method to be followed by the court. Judges use a variety of methods to determine voluntariness. Often these methods involve questioning the accused by the judge and sometimes by the prosecutor and defence counsel. [2] Scheb stated: “The objective is to establish that no unreasonable inducement was provided to obtain a plea, that the defendant understands the fundamental constitutional rights arising from a trial, that these rights are waived, and that he understands the consequences of the plea.” [2] Scheb discussed how the court determines the factual basis of the plea: “When determining that there is a factual basis for the defendant`s plea, judges often ask the prosecutor to briefly describe the available evidence to support the defendant`s prima facie case of guilt. Further investigation is usually required for crimes with specific intent. [2] Scheb emphasized the importance of why it was necessary to create a factual basis for the plea before it is registered by the defendant: “The rigour of the court`s determination of voluntariness and factual basis becomes important if a defendant subsequently withdraws a plea and pleads not guilty.” [2] In this reasoning, the Court considered the legal language and legislative history of section 1192.5 of the Criminal Code, as well as the jurisprudence of the Court of Appeal interpreting that section, and concluded that, in order to accept a conditional plea, a trial court must ask the defendant or counsel for the factual basis of the cause of action.
The court has established guidelines to assist the trial court in fulfilling this investigative obligation. For example, if the trial court questions the defendant, it may develop the factual basis of the case by questioning the defendant on the factual basis described in the complaint or written agreement, or by asking the defendant to describe the conduct that led to the charge. When the trial court inquires about defense counsel, it should require defense counsel to “produce a specific document that provides a factual basis, such as a complaint, police report, preliminary hearing record, probation report, grand jury transcript, or written oral argument.” (Holmes, above, 32. 4. at p. 442.) Since the law requires that only a prima facie factual basis be created for the prosecution, the trial court does not have to question the defendant on the possible defences or be satisfied that he is guilty. (Id., p. 441.) However, the Court reiterated that, in both approaches, a summary statement by the judge that there is a factual basis without investigation or any attempt to develop the factual basis is insufficient. (Id., p. 441.) The acceptance of a plea by the court of first instance after examining the factual basis is annulled only on the ground of misuse of powers. (Id., p. 434.) And the finding of an error according to this standard is considered not open to criticism if the content of the minutes leads to the conclusion that there is an objective basis for the plea.1 (Id., p.
443). The factual basis of the conspiracy or guilty plea has not been established. Although the indictment was read to the accused, the accused never investigated whether he understood what it meant to be part of a conspiracy and whether he was actually acting to advance that conspiracy.
