Jimmie Sturgill v. Commonwealth
(two consolidated cases), Kentucky Court of Appeals, to be published (9/15/17):
Jimmie Sturgill accepted the
Commonwealth’s guilty plea offer on two separate but related cases. At
the sentencing hearing for the two cases, defense counsel told the court
Sturgill had contacted him a few weeks before and said he wanted to withdraw
his pleas. Defense counsel told the court the motion to withdraw was
“absolutely” against his advice. Defense counsel also told the court that
if it granted the motion to withdraw the pleas, he wanted to be removed from
Sturgill’s cases.
The court placed Sturgill under oath and asked him a
series of questions about why he wanted to withdraw the pleas. Defense
counsel and the Commonwealth then did the same. During questioning from
the Commonwealth, Sturgill said the plea was “against my will” and he had not
wanted to do it. Neither defense counsel nor the court followed up with
any questions about that statement. The court found Sturgill’s testimony
to be “incredible” and said Sturgill simply changing his mind or having regrets
was not sufficient reason to withdraw the plea. The court sentenced
Sturgill to the agreed-upon sentence.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals vacated and remanded
the convictions. It found Sturgill was denied effective representation at
the withdrawal hearing because defense counsel adamantly opposed Sturgill’s
attempt to withdraw his pleas. It said it was troubling that defense
counsel did not specifically ask why Sturgill felt he made the pleas against
his will. On remand, Sturgill will be returned to the point in time
between when he accepted the guilty plea and before he sought to withdraw
it. Steven Buck represented Mr. Sturgill on appeal.
