Motion to withdraw plea correctly denied

Where appellant pleaded guilty to arson and three counts of animal cruelty arising from the death of two dogs and a cat, the circuit court correctly denied his motion to withdraw his plea.

There was substantial evidence against him and he had no reasonable defense to the charges.

Background

Appellant Bingham was charged with one count of arson and three counts of animal cruelty. A dog and a cat died from smoke inhalation. Another dog had to be euthanized.

Bingham pleaded guilty to all charges. “The trial court accepted Bingham’s guilty pleas, finding that they were made freely, intelligently, and voluntarily and that Bingham understood the nature of the charges against him and the consequences of pleading guilty. …

The commonwealth proffered the evidence expected to be used at trial. Bingham moved in with Renee McLaughlin and her daughter. McLaughlin owned two dogs and a cat. On the day of the fire, McLaughlin left her house at 4 a.m. to go to work.

When she left, she believed her daughter was the only person in the house. However, Bingham was also there. McLaughlin’s daughter left at 9 a.m. for a doctor’s appointment. She returned around 3 p.m. The house was on fire. Two of McLaughlin’s pets died in the fire. Another had to be euthanized.

Bingham denied any knowledge of the fire and said he left for work after McLaughlin’s daughter left the house. Bingham told an investigator that McLaughlin had wiring problems and speculated that the fire was electrical in nature.

A fire investigator determined the fire had been intentionally set. The police arrested Bingham. He again denied knowing anything about the fire. But he admitted he had spent the night before the fire at the house and that he and McLaughlin had argued.

Bingham said he was angry with McLaughlin and “wanted some type of retaliation or vengeance[.]” He stated that after the daughter left the house, he lit a paper towel and put it on McLaughlin’s bed. He said the fire got out of control. The cat, which was sleeping on the bed, caught fire and ran around the bedroom until it stopped whining.

Bingham said he took measures so the dogs could escape but they never left the house. “He told the trial court that ‘he set the fire but it was not [done] intentionally.’ Based on his guilty pleas and the Commonwealth’s proffer, the trial court convicted Bingham on all charges.”

After his convictions, Bingham sent two pro se letters to the court. Bingham sought to withdraw his plea because counsel had advised him that by pleading guilty, he would “receive time served.” He also sought new counsel.

Bingham’s counsel moved to withdraw from the case. The trial court granted the motion and appointed new counsel for Bingham. Before sentencing, Bingham’s new counsel filed a motion to withdraw the pleas. The court denied the motion and sentenced Bingham. He appealed.

Analysis

“Bingham argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. …

““[A] defendant who moves to withdraw a guilty plea before sentencing need only show that [1] his motion was made in good faith and [2] premised upon a reasonable basis.’ …

“The first requirement protects the integrity of the judicial process by precluding defendants from using a guilty plea as a subterfuge to manipulate the court. The second requirement defeats motions to withdraw which would result in an essentially futile trial. …

“We will assume, without deciding, that Bingham’s motion was made in good faith, and only consider here whether his motion was ‘premised upon a reasonable basis. To establish this basis, the defendant must offer a defense that is “substantive “and “reasonable,” not “merely dilatory or formal.’ …

“In arguing his motion, Bingham explained that he only pled guilty because he thought that he would receive time served. And he testified that it would be ‘dumb’ to set the house on fire as the result of an argument because the house contained his own property.

“He also said that he would not kill innocent animals because he was angry with someone and testified that he lacked motive to commit these crimes because he had other places he could have stayed.

“While Bingham’s earlier pro se letter to the court mentioned Ronnie Rose and Danielle Rose as potential alibi witnesses, neither Bingham nor his counsel so much as mentioned these individuals during the hearing, let alone provided a proffer of what they would testify to at trial.

“When asked about his earlier confession to the police, Bingham did not deny the confession but claimed he did not remember it because he was under the influence of drugs when he spoke to the officer.

“Bingham did not explain why he failed to contest the Commonwealth’s proffer of evidence at his plea hearing (which included his confession), or why Bingham’s prior counsel had in fact corrected the Commonwealth’s evidence by providing more precise information about Bingham’s confession to the police.

“Specifically, his counsel added that Bingham told the police that the cat was on the bed when he set the fire and that the cat itself then caught on fire and ran around the room until it ‘stopped whining.’

“In addition, his counsel said Bingham explained that he tried to extinguish the fire and that he left the back door open for the dogs to escape.

“We find no error with the trial court’s conclusion that Bingham failed to make a prima facie showing of a reasonable defense. The trial court provided Bingham the opportunity to call witnesses, submit affidavits, or proffer evidence, but he failed to do so.

“The record supports the trial court’s finding that Bingham failed to offer a reasonable basis for moving to withdraw his pleas.”

Affirmed.

Bingham v. Commonwealth, Record No. 1396-21-1, May 17, 2022. CAV (Lorish). From the Circuit Court of Gloucester (Shaw). Charles E. Haden for appellant. Matthew J. Beyrau for appellee. VLW 022-7-137, 7 pp.