Ransom v. State

The trial court was authorized to disbelieve the defendant's contention that he was highly emotional when he pled guilty to aggravated stalking, family violence battery and cruelty to children and that he misunderstood the plea agreement.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Willie Ransom was indicted for aggravated stalking, family violence battery, and two counts of cruelty to children. Following the testimony of two key witnesses at trial, Ransom pled guilty to all charges. Several weeks after his plea and sentencing, Ransom moved to withdraw the plea, asserting that it was not freely and voluntarily entered. The trial court denied the motion, and Ransom appeals. Finding no error, we affirm. When a defendant challenges the validity of his guilty plea, the state bears the burden of demonstrating that the plea was voluntarily and intelligently entered.1 It may do so “by either 1 showing on the record of the plea hearing that the defendant understood the rights he was waiving and the consequences of his plea, or 2 filling a silent record with extrinsic evidence that affirmatively shows the plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.”2 In resolving a post-sentencing motion to withdraw a guilty plea, the trial court acts as fact finder and exercises its sound discretion.3 Its ruling on the matter will not be reversed absent a manifest abuse of that discretion.4

We find no abuse here. The record shows that after several witnesses testified at trial, Ransom asked his attorney about the possibility of entering a guilty plea. Defense counsel discussed a potential plea with the state, and the prosecutor offered a plea deal involving “ten years to serve eight followed by thirty-six months.” Counsel conveyed the state’s offer to Ransom and his family. According to defense counsel, the discussion was emotional, as Ransom “was preparing to enter his plea of guilty for some time in prison.”

Ransom v. State

The trial court was authorized to disbelieve the defendant's contention that he was highly emotional when he pled guilty to aggravated stalking, family violence battery and cruelty to children and that he misunderstood the plea agreement.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report