On February 14, 2003, the Washington Court of Appeals, Division II, upheld
a trial court's denial of a state prisoner's motion to withdraw a guilty plea.

Steven Henderson and another prisoner were charged with escaping from the
Clallam Bay Corrections Center on December 29, 1999. Henderson, who was
serving time for murder, was reportedly seen by a guard running outside the
prison fence. Guards "later discovered evidence of 'extensive planning' for
the escape attempt that included putting dummies in beds, tools, and a ladder."

Throughout his case, Henderson filed numerous motions and requests for
relief in the trial court, some of which alleged coercion and threats by
guards. On January 18, 2001, Henderson and his codefendant agreed to a plea
agreement that reduced the charge from first degree "to second degree
escape with a recommendation of a sentence on the low end of the standard
range and recommendation that Henderson be transferred to a different
prison." Henderson and his codefendant vocalized to the court their desire
to accept the plea agreement.

The next week Henderson filed a motion with the court seeking to withdraw
his plea and proceed to trial. At the next court hearing on January 29,
2001, however, Henderson apologized for the motion and expressed his desire
to take the plea, promising not to change his mind again. The next day,
Henderson entered an Alford plea in open court, acknowledging to the court
that he had "read the plea, understood it, was advised of the plea's
consequences, and that he wished to take advantage of the State's plea offer."

Nearly one year later Henderson filed a motion to withdraw his plea,
claiming it was involuntary because he was coerced by guards. The trial
court denied the motion, holding that he failed to satisfy his evidentiary
burden of proof showing the plea was involuntary. Henderson appealed.
Reviewing for an abuse of discretion, the Washington Court of Appeals,
Division II, affirmed, holding:

1) "Once a plea is entered, the defendant bears the burden to show an
involuntary plea."

2) Given Henderson's voluntary actions in accepting the plea offer and the
court's assertion that his actions showed he had not been intimidated by
"the system, the Court, or by the Department of Corrections," the evidence
did not satisfy the high evidentiary burden of a manifest injustice
requiring the withdrawal of his plea.

3) A defendant asserting a necessity defense "must substantially prove that
he made a bona fide effort to surrender as soon as the asserted threat
ended." Regarding discovery proceedings relating to Henderson's necessity
defense, the court "emphasized that the witness testimony must be 'relevant
to the duress' placed" on Henderson and his codefendant. Moreover,
"everything in. the record relates to conduct that occurred after the date
of the escape incident" except for one prisoner affidavit alleging a guard
verbally abused him for associating with Henderson, which alone, the court
held, did not satisfy Henderson's evidentiary burden to prove necessity.
Therefore, the trial court's discovery ruling relating to Henderson's
necessity defense did not materially contribute to an involuntary plea as
Henderson suggested.

The appeals court held that the trial court did not err in denying
Henderson's motion to withdraw his plea. See: Washington v. Henderson,
Washington Court of Appeals, Division II, Case No. 30138-5-11 (unpublished).

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login

Related legal case