North Carolina v. Alford
- Decided
- November 23, 1970
- Docket
- 14
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 9,465 timesOverruled (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: overruled (not yet verified) · Christina Price Flanders v. State
What later courts said
- holding that in some circumstances, a court may constitutionally accept a defendant’s guilty plea even though the defendant maintained his innocence — State v. Theis (2007)
- holding that court may accept guilty plea despite defendant’s protestations of factual innocence where court finds factual basis for plea and that plea was voluntary and intelligent — United States v. Broxmeyer (2012)
- holding that a defendant may plead guilty while disputing the facts alleged by the prosecution — State v. Price (2005)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Justice White delivered the opinion of the Court.
On December 2, 1963, Alford was indicted for first-degree murder, a capital offense under North Carolina [*27] law.[1] The court appointed an attorney to represent him, and this attorney questioned all but one of the various witnesses who appellee said would substantiate his claim of innocence. The witnesses, however, did-not support Alford’s story but gave statements that strongly ■ indicated his guilt. Faced with strong evidence of guilt and no substantial evidentiary support for the claim of innocence, Alford’s attorney recommended that he .plead guilty, but .left the ultimate decision to Alford himself. The prosecutor agreed to accept a plea of guilty to a charge of. second-degree murder, and on December 10, 1963, Alford pleaded guilty to the reduced charge.
[*28] Before the plea was finally accepted by the trial court, the court heard the sworn testimony of a police officer who summarized the State’s case. Two other witnesses besides Aiford were also heard. Although there was no eyewitness to the crime, the testimony indicated that shortly before the killing Alford took his gun from his house, stated his intention to kill the victim, and returned home with the declaration that he had carried out the killing. After the summary presentation of the State’s case, Alford took the stand and testified that he had not committed the murder but that he was pleading guilty because he faced the.threat of the death penalty if he did not do so.[2] In response to the questions of his counsel, he acknowledged that his counsel had informed him of -the difference between second- and first-degree [*29] murder and of his rights in case he chose to go to trial.[3] The trial court then asked appellee if, in light of his denial of guilt, he still desired to plead guilty to second-degree murder and appellee answered, “Yes, sir. I plead guilty on — from the circumstances that he [Alford’s attorney] told me.” - After eliciting information about Alford’s prior criminal record, which was a long one,[4] the trial court sentenced him to 50 years’ imprisonment, the maximum penalty for second-degree, murder.[5] • Alford sought post-conviction relief in the state court. Among the claims raised was the claim that his plea of guilty was invalid because it was the product of fear and coercion. After a hearing, the state court in 1965 found that the plea was “willingly, knowingly, and understandingly” made on the advice of competent counsel and in the face of a strong prosecution case. Subsequently, Alford petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, first in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, and then in the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Both courts denied, the writ on the basis of the state court’s findings that Alford yoluntarily [*30] and knowingly agreed to plead guilty. In 1967, Alford again petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in the Dis-. trict Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. That court, without an evidentiary, hearing, again denied relief on the grounds that the guilty plea was voluntary and waived all defenses and nonjurisdictional' defects in any prior stage of the proceedings, and that the findings of the state court in 1965 clearly required rejection of Alford’s claim that he was denied effective assistance of-counsel prior to pleading guilty. On appeal, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed on the ground that Alford’s guilty plea was made involuntarily. 405 F. 2d 340. (1968). In reaching itá conclusion, the Court of Appeals relied heavily on United States v. Jackson, 390 U. S. 570 (1968), which the court read to require invalidation of the North Carolina statutory framework for the imposition of the death penalty because North Carolina statutes encouraged defendants to waive constitutional rights by the promise of no more than life imprisonment if a guilty plea was offered and accepted. Conceding that Jackson did not require the automatic invalidation of pleas of guilty entered under the North Carolina statutes, the Court of Appeals ruled that Alford’s guilty plea was involuntary because its principal .motivation was fear of the death penalty. By this standard, even if both the judge and the jury had possessed the 4)0wer to impose the death, penalty for first-degree murder or if guilty pleas to capital charges had not been permitted, Alford’s plea of guilty to second-degree murder should still have been rejected because impermissibly induced by his desire to eliminate the possibility of a death sentence.[6] We noted [*31] probable jurisdiction. 394 U. S. 956 (1969). We vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings.
Cite this
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.