In 2003 Terry Lewis had four open criminal cases.
Some of the cases were drug-related offenses.
The rest were assault charges.
Terry hired a private attorney.
On the day of trial Terry’s attorney advised him to tender a plea for all cases (a global disposition) and receive the split sentenced offered by the prosecution.
The sentence was for 2.5 years in jail with the first 18 months served directly and the balance suspended.
To encourage him to accept the plea, Terry’s attorney allegedly claimed that motions to suppress evidence were filed, argued, and lost in the drug cases.
Based on this fraudulent advice, Terry accepted the prosecutor’s offer, pleaded guilty, and went to jail.
Years later, Terry learned that his attorney never filed motions to suppress the alleged drug evidence.
After learning of the deceit, Terry filed a motion to vacate his plea.
The motion judge allowed Terry to withdraw his plea on the drug offenses only.
The judge was unwilling to vacate Terry’s plea to the assault charges.
Terry appealed and today the Appeals Court upheld the motion judge’s ruling.
According to the Appeals Court:
The motion judge found that plea counsel’s lies related only to the drug cases, and not to the assault cases. Additionally, he found that the defendant knew the witnesses for the assault cases were present, and inferentially that the defendant was motivated to accept the global plea agreement by the risk that he would be convicted of the offenses charged in the assault case that was then on the brink of being tried. Where we infer that the motion judge found that the older assault case, and not either drug case, was the “pivotal” case in the defendant’s decision to accept the plea agreement, we discern no error of law and no abuse of discretion in the judge’s denial of the defendant’s motion for a new trial in the assault cases.
To read the full text of the slip opinion, click the document below.