Supreme Court Provides Important Guidance on the Proper Standard for Reviewing Plea Withdrawal Denials and Reaffirms the Significant Discretion Given to Trial Courts in These Matters
Commonwealth v. Holland, Record No. 230907 (Va. Jan. 16, 2025)
Tanya Holland was charged with felony child neglect after giving her three-year-old son methadone that nearly proved fatal. She told authorities that she thought that she had given her son Zyrtec.
After entering a no contest plea, but before sentencing, Holland moved to withdraw her plea. She claimed that she had entered it inadvisedly, arguing that her former counsel failed to inform her about the “willfulness” element of the offense, neglected to review discovery with her, and misled her about potential jail time. The trial court denied her motion and imposed a suspended five-year sentence. Holland appealed.
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, finding that Holland had met her burden for withdrawing her plea, but the Supreme Court disagreed. It identified several errors in the Court of Appeals’ analysis, specifically as to whether Holland had entered her plea in good faith under an honest mistake of fact.
First, the Court of Appeals wrongly disregarded all statements from Holland’s plea colloquy. The Supreme Court clarified that while some colloquy statements cannot be used against a defendant seeking to withdraw a plea, others can. Statements that cannot be used are those “‘admitting to certain external facts of which the trial court has no direct personal knowledge,’ specifically those ‘that concern the defendant’s guilt of the charged offense, the absence of a defense, or the defendant’s satisfaction with the services of a lawyer.’” However, Holland’s acknowledgement that she had been promised nothing in return for her plea; her former counsel’s statement that he had reviewed discovery with her; and the trial court’s own communications about sentencing exposure, elements of the offense, and plea terms were relevant and could be considered.
Second, the Court of Appeals failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the prevailing party below. From the relevant statements listed above, the trial court could have reasonably concluded that the plea was not entered under an honest mistake of material facts. The Supreme Court emphasized that appellate courts must presume that the trial court made implicit factual findings supporting its decision, even if not expressly stated.
Finally, the Court of Appeals improperly shifted the burden of proof to the Commonwealth to “combat” Holland’s claims. The Supreme Court stressed that the defendant bears the burden of establishing grounds for a plea withdrawal and that the Commonwealth need not present countervailing evidence. Based on these errors, the Supreme Court reinstated Holland’s conviction and suspended sentence.