[ back ]
Can You Plead Guilty to Something You Didn’t Do?
Jason Miller was arrested for his sixth DWI offense, driving with suspended license for the second time, and giving false information to the police. He was on probation for committing welfare fraud. He pled not guilty and was released pre-trial on condition, among others, that he report daily to the police. He failed to report on 13 occasions, and was charged with 13 additional crimes of “failure to appear.” To resolve these charges, he admitted he violated his probation, plead guilty to DWI-6, and guilty to 4 “failure to appear” charges. Separate sentences were imposed for each charge which resulted in him being sentenced to serve four to nine years in jail
He got a new lawyer who argued Miller wasn’t guilty of “failure to appear,” because that crime was limited to appearances in court, and not failing to report to the police. Since you can’t plead guilty to something you didn’t do, his guilty plea was involuntary and he was illegally sentenced. The trial court disagreed and upheld the sentence. Miller appealed to the Supreme Court.
Four justices, in a nine page opinion, agreed with Miller and threw out the guilty plea. Justice Burgess dissented in a 7-page opinion. The majority ruled that the Legislature had clearly provided for two separate crimes: one for failure to appear - “in connection with the prosecution,” i.e. be in Court, which carried a penalty of a fine of $5,000 and 2 years in jail, and another for failure to “abide by conditions of release” which carried a penalty of a fine of $1,000 or six months imprisonment. Since Miller had always shown up in Court, and the Legislature had created two very distinct offenses, they ruled there was no factual basis for a plea of guilty. The law insists they said, that a person cannot plead guilty to something he is not guilty of.
Not so, said Justice Burgess. Conditions of release also are imposed “in connection with the prosecution.” In addition to requiring Court appearances, such releases are, or could be, to protect the public – orders to stay away from a victim, not possess firearms, take alcohol breath tests - or the like are “connected to the prosecution” in the sense that they arise out of the acts charged and are not a means to assure court appearances. Accordingly, the prosecutor has discretion to charge the more serious crime.
Both sides argued that their view of the law was clearly stated by the Legislature. Evidently they aren’t both right. Still, when there is doubt, individual rights are best protected when offenders are punished under a lenient law, rather than one chosen by the State’s Attorney.
[ back ]
