Michael Crumpton was charged with simple battery. He pled not guilty and the case was set for trial. When the court called the case for trial on March 17, Crumpton was not present. As a result, the trial court issued a bench warrant for Crumpton’s arrest. Crumpton did appear in court later that day and, while represented by counsel, pled guilty to the charge of simple battery. After a hearing, the trial court accepted the plea and sentenced Crumpton to serve 12 months in jail and ordered him to undergo counseling, have no contact with the victim, and pay a $200 fine. The court gave Crumpton credit for the two days he had already spent in jail and ordered him to serve the balance of the sentence on probation. The next day, Crumpton filed a pro se Motion for Reduction or Modification of Sentence, claiming that the solicitor had coerced him into pleading guilty by telling him that he could either plead guilty or spend 30 days in jail pursuant to the bench warrant. During a March 20, 2003 hearing on the motion, Crumpton stated that he had been late for court on March 17 because he had to go get a witness for his defense. He argued that his sentence should be modified because he had not had a chance to prepare his defense. The court stated that it would not modify Crumpton’s sentence, but that it would permit him to withdraw his guilty plea. Crumpton opted to withdraw the plea, and the court announced that the case would be placed on the next trial calendar. The solicitor then informed the court that there was no current bond posted by Crumpton. The court advised Crumpton that he would need to post a new bond to secure his appearance for the newly-set trial. Crumpton objected, saying he had already paid a bondsman once on the charge. The trial court explained to Crumpton that the original bondsman was released when Crumpton pled guilty to the charge a few days earlier, and that if he withdrew the guilty plea, he would need to either post a new bond or be arrested. Crumpton stated that he would withdraw his motion and let the guilty plea and sentence stand because he did not want to post bond again. This appeal follows.
In a single enumeration of error, Crumpton contends that the court “erred in allowing the solicitor to require him to await a trial at a subsequent trial term in jail if he did not plead guilty to simple battery at the call of the calendar on March 17, 2003.” He urges that the solicitor was vindictive and pressured him into pleading guilty. For several reasons, his arguments present no basis for reversal.
