Raheem v. State

The trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion for an out-of-time appeal from his convictions in 1981 and 1982 because he was not informed of his Boykin rights before pleading guilty to those offenses and the guilty pleas were thus invalid.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Haneef Abdul Raheem, formerly known as Reno Ray Jones, entered guilty pleas to various criminal offenses in 1981, 1982, and 1985. Approximately thirty years later, Raheem filed a pro se motion for an out-of-time appeal from each of his convictions, and the trial court denied the motion. In three separate appeals,1 Raheem argues that he is entitled to an out-of-time appeal from each conviction because his guilty pleas were invalid and his trial counsel failed to inform him of his right to appeal.2 For the reasons set forth infra, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The facts underlying this appeal are largely undisputed. In 1981, Raheem pleaded guilty to motor-vehicle theft and hit-and-run. The next year, he pleaded guilty to burglary , and in 1985, to armed robbery. Decades later, in 2013, Raheem filed a pro se motion for an out-of-time appeal from all of these convictions, arguing that his guilty pleas were involuntary because, in each plea proceeding, he was not advised of his right to a jury trial, his right to confront the witnesses against him, or his right against self incrimination. Raheem further argued that the essential elements of each of his offenses were not explained to him prior to entering his guilty pleas. As a result, Raheem contends that he is entitled to an out-of-time appeal from each conviction because his guilty pleas were not knowing and voluntary and neither the trial court nor his trial counsel advised him of his limited appellate rights.

Raheem v. State

The trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion for an out-of-time appeal from his convictions in 1981 and 1982 because he was not informed of his Boykin rights before pleading guilty to those offenses and the guilty pleas were thus invalid.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report