State v. Iafornaro ( 2007 )

No. DA 06-0148
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2007 MT 77
____________________________________
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ANTHONY DEAN IAFORNARO,
Defendant and Appellant.
____________________________________
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Gallatin, Cause No. DC 03-191,
The Honorable Holly Brown, Presiding Judge.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Chad Wright, Montana Appellate Defender Office, Helena, Montana
For Respondent:
Hon. Mike McGrath, Attorney General; Carol E. Schmidt, Assistant
Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Marty Lambert, Gallatin County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana
____________________________________
Submitted on Briefs: January 24, 2007
Decided: March 20, 2007
Filed:
_____________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Brian Morris delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Anthony Dean Iafornaro (Iafornaro) appeals from the District Court’s denial of his
motion to withdraw his plea of nolo contendere. We affirm.
¶2 We review whether the District Court correctly denied Iafornaro’s motion to
withdraw his plea of nolo contendere?
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶3 The State charged Iafornaro on July 9, 2003, with felony attempted sexual assault
for accosting a 15-year-old girl while she was cleaning his motel room. Iafornaro entered
a plea of not guilty to the charge and requested that the court order a mental examination
to determine his fitness to proceed to trial. The court ordered the mental examination and
continued Iafornaro’s trial date.
¶4 The court determined at a hearing on December 23, 2003, that Iafornaro lacked
fitness to stand trial. The court committed Iafornaro to the Department of Health and
Human Services for as “long as the unfitness endures.” The court held another hearing
on March 11, 2004, where all parties agreed that Iafornaro was fit to proceed to trial on
the felony attempted sexual assault charge.
¶5 Iafornaro entered into a plea agreement with the State on July 28, 2004. The State
agreed to drop Iafornaro’s felony attempted sexual assault charge in exchange for
Iafornaro’s plea of nolo contendere to a charge of felony attempted kidnapping. The
agreement specified that the State would proceed to trial on the original felony charge of
attempted sexual assault if the court declined to accept Iafornaro’s plea of nolo
contendere to felony attempted kidnapping. The court accepted Iafornaro’s plea and
2
sentenced Iafornaro on February 8, 2005, to Montana State Prison for ten years with no
time suspended.
¶6 Iafornaro filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea on November 2, 2005.
Iafornaro argued that the court had failed to inform him of the “lesser included offense of
unlawful restraint” when the court accepted his plea of nolo contendere to his charge of
felony attempted kidnapping. He contended that his plea was involuntary in light of the
court’s omission and his “documented history of serious mental illness.” The State
responded that the lesser included offense of unlawful restraint was irrelevant to
Iafornaro’s decision in light of the fact that he had no possibility of going to trial on the
felony attempted kidnapping charge. The State pointed out that Iafornaro’s plea
agreement stipulated that the State would proceed to trial on the charge of felony
attempted sexual assault if the court did not accept his plea of nolo contendere to felony
attempted kidnapping. The court determined that Iafornaro had failed to establish good
cause to withdraw his plea. This appeal followed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶7 We review Iafornaro’s motion to withdraw his plea of nolo contendere to
determine whether his plea was voluntary. State v. Muhammad, 2005 MT 234, ¶ 12, 328
Mont. 397, ¶ 12, 121 P.3d 521, ¶ 12. Our determination of whether Iafornaro’s plea was
voluntary presents a mixed question of law and fact that we review de novo. Muhammad,
¶ 12.
3
DISCUSSION
¶8 Did the District Court correctly deny Iafornaro’s motion to withdraw his plea of
nolo contendere?
¶9 Section 46-16-105(2), MCA, authorizes a district court to permit a defendant to
withdraw his plea of nolo contendere upon a showing of “good cause.” Muhammad, ¶
14. Iafornaro argues that the District Court’s failure to inform him that unlawful restraint
is a lesser included offense of felony attempted kidnapping constitutes “good cause.” He
suggests that the court’s omission prevented him from entering a “knowing, intelligent
and voluntary” plea.
¶10 Iafornaro cites State v. Sanders, 1999 MT 136, 294 Mont. 539, 982 P.2d 1015, and
State v. Rave, 2005 MT 78, 326 Mont. 398, 109 P.3d 753, for the proposition that a
district court’s failure to inform a defendant of an “applicable lesser included offense[]”
establishes “good cause.” The defendants in Sanders and Rave both waived their right to
submit an applicable lesser included offense instruction to a jury when they entered guilty
pleas pursuant to their respective plea agreements with the State. Sanders, ¶¶ 4-5; Rave,
¶¶ 16-17. The courts had not informed the defendants, however, as to what lesser
included charges that they would be waiving. Sanders, ¶¶ 20-21; Rave, ¶¶ 17-18. The
Court determined that these defendants could not have knowingly and intelligently
waived their right to convince a jury that they were guilty of a lesser included offense
when the defendants had not been informed of what those lesser included offenses might
have been. Sanders, ¶¶ 22-23; Rave, ¶ 19. The Court held that these defendants had
established “good cause” to withdraw their pleas. Sanders, ¶¶ 23, 32; Rave, ¶ 19.
4
¶11 Iafornaro argues that he also waived his right to submit a lesser included offense
instruction to a jury without first being informed of what those lesser included offenses
might have been. Iafornaro’s plea agreement stipulated, however, that the State would
proceed to trial on the felony attempted sexual assault charge if the court did not accept
his plea of nolo contendere to the felony attempted kidnapping charge. Only those lesser
included offenses applicable to his charge of felony attempted sexual assault would have
been relevant to Iafornaro’s decision. Iafornaro does not allege that the court failed to
inform him as to any of the lesser included charges applicable to felony attempted sexual
assault.
¶12 We cannot fault the court or the State for failing to inform Iafornaro of any lesser
included offense not relevant to his decision to enter a plea of nolo contendere. Iafornaro
had no right to be informed of the possibility of submitting a lesser included offense
instruction to the jury when no such possibility existed. State v. Thee, 2001 MT 294, ¶
24, 307 Mont. 450, ¶ 24, 37 P.3d 741, ¶ 24.
¶13 Iafornaro also argues that his “mental illness and confusion rendered his plea
unknowing, unintelligent, and involuntary.” The court took care to ensure, however, that
Iafornaro’s mental illness did not interfere with the voluntariness of his plea agreement.
The court ordered Iafornaro to be placed in the care of the Department of Health and
Human Services on December 23, 2003, until he was deemed fit to proceed. Iafornaro,
his doctors, his counsel, and the court later agreed at a hearing on March 11, 2004, that
Iafornaro was fit to proceed.
5
¶14 The record indicates that no omission, misinformation, or mental incapacity
hindered Iafornaro’s ability to enter knowingly and intelligently into his plea agreement.
The District Court correctly decided that Iafornaro had failed to establish good cause for
withdrawing his plea of nolo contendere.
¶15 Affirmed.
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
We Concur:
/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
/S/ JOHN WARNER
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
/S/ JIM RICE
6