People v. Goodrum

In People v. Goodrum (1991) 228 Cal. App. 3d 397, the appellate court held that the trial court should "allow the withdrawal of a plea if the presentation at the hearing establishes that a reasonable person in the defendant's position, had he been correctly advised by the judge or other responsible public official, would not have entered a guilty plea and forfeited his 'substantial legal right' to a trial. " (Id. at p. 401.) The 70-year-old Goodrum pleaded nolo contendere to a felony charge of driving under the influence in exchange for probation with no jail time beyond the 60 days he'd already served. The charge stemmed from a single car accident in which Goodrum was driving and the passenger was killed. (Goodrum, supra, 228 Cal.App.3d at p. 399.) At the time of the plea the defendant was facing a civil wrongful death suit by the passenger's heirs. The trial court inquired of Goodrum whether he understood the nature of the nolo contendere plea, and he replied it was the same as a guilty plea except it could not be used against him in a civil suit. (Ibid.) Although the trial court told Goodrum his understanding was correct, the court was wrong, because the statute only prohibits the use of misdemeanor pleas in civil suits. (Id. at p. 400.) Subsequently, Goodrum moved to withdraw his plea but the court, although it conceded Goodrum had been misled, denied the motion. (Ibid.) Goodrum appealed. The court of appeal stated a trial court may entertain a petition for writ of coram nobis "whenever a defendant has been induced to enter the plea by misstatements made by a responsible public official." (Goodrum, supra, 228 Cal.App.3d at p. 400.) The court decided that coram nobis relief is warranted under such circumstances if defendant "establishes that a reasonable person in the defendant's position, had he been correctly advised by the judge or other responsible public official, would not have entered a guilty plea and forfeited his 'substantial legal right' to a trial." (Id. at p. 401.) In this regard, the court noted that "where the erroneous advisement relates to a central element of the plea bargain . . . there will be little question that withdrawal of the plea is appropriate." (Id. at p. 402.) On the other hand, where the misstatement concerns a collateral consequence of the plea, the court must "determine whether such a misstatement was significant enough to cause a reasonable person not to enter the plea." (Ibid.) In the end, the court concluded the effect of the trial court's misstatement would not cause a reasonable person to decline the benefits of Goodrum's plea bargain because the nolo contendere plea was of limited evidentiary effect in the civil case and did not mean Goodrum's civil liability had been conclusively established. (Id. at pp. 402-403.) Thus, the court of appeal concluded the trial court properly denied Goodrum's motion to vacate his guilty plea. (Id. at p. 403.) In Goodrum, it was undisputed that the trial court misinformed Goodrum that his nolo contendere plea could not be used against him in the wrongful death suit. It is equally clear this misinformation induced Goodrum into accepting the plea: Goodrum told the court he was pleading nolo contendere rather than guilty because "the advantage to me . . . is the fact . . . I wouldn't be facing the possibility of civil suits." (Id. at pp. 399-400, fn.2.)