Briefing a case State v. Wells Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Briefing a case subject v. Wells - Essay ExampleThe appellant maintained her innocence, but believing that she would be convicted and sentenced harshly at a trial, she entered into plea negotiations and concur to plead guilty provided the prosecution recommend a sentence of 8 years on the vehicular homicide count, and 4 years for the vehicular assault to run concurrently. The prosecution agreed and the appellant pleaded guilty (Alford pleas). The court accepted the prosecutions recommendations for sentencing and the appellant was sentenced accordingly.Legal Issues The appellant raised(a) two legal issues on appeal. First she contends that the trial court erred in failing to ascertain whether or not her Alford pleas were entered freely and knowingly consistent to the US Supreme Courts ruling in North Carolina v Alford (1971) 400 U.S. 25. Secondly, the appellant argued that her guilty pleas were not entered freely and knowingly because her attorney had not properly informed her of the legal consequences of the guilty pleas.Reasoning After reviewing the record of the proceedings in the get down court the appellate court determined that the court specifically inquired as to why the appellant was appeal guilty and not opting to go to trial. It was revealed that the appellant agreed that she felt she would be convicted despite her innocence and would find oneself a harsher sentence than the sentence she negotiated under the plea agreement. Thus, the court found that the necessary inquiries were made pursuant to the Alford case to ascertain that the appellant had freely and knowingly accepted a plea agreement. Therefore the firstly ground of appeal was dismissed on the merits. As to the second ground of appeal, the appellate court good that there was no evidence on the record illustrating that the attorney did not properly inform the appellant of the legal consequences of Alford pleas. Relying on State v Cooperrider (1983) 4 Ohio St. 3d. 226, the appellate co urt reasoned that when an