The Massachusetts Appeals Court today rejected a request for a new trial from a man who pleaded guilty to drunk driving more than 20 years ago, basically telling him that what little evidence remains from the case shows his rights were not violated.
Robert Haskell did not try to reverse his 1987 guilty plea in Salem District Court until 2007, when he learned the Registry of Motor Vehicles was about to suspend his license for four years because of it. In his request for a new trial, Haskell did not dispute that he pleaded guilty but said his rights were violated because the judge in the case did not ask him if he were pleading guilty voluntarily and free from the influence of drugs or alcohol - a procedure known as a "colloquy."
In its ruling, the Appeals Court ruled that Haskell's current lawyer blew it by submitting affidavits from Haskell and lawyers who practiced law in Salem at the time that "employed identical stock phrases and allegations" to make the argument the judge often failed to ask the questions. Also, the judge in the case - who spent 34 years on the bench - disputed one lawyer's assertion he had appeared before him "hundreds of times" and said he complied fully with the colloquy rules in effect at the time.
Although the plea judge's affidavit did not set forth what specific questions he would routinely ask during a colloquy, he did make explicit reference to complying with Commonwealth v. Duquette, supra, which was decided in 1982, and that he used a sheet of questions prepared by the Chief Justice of the District Court.
Complete ruling.
