Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Boykin v. Alabama

Supreme Court of the United States · 1969 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal Procedureguilty pleavoluntary and intelligentwaiverconstitutional rightsguilty pleasilent recordaffirmative showing

Facts

Petitioner, an indigent defendant represented by appointed counsel, pleaded guilty at arraignment to five indictments for common-law robbery, an offense punishable in Alabama by death. So far as the record showed, the trial judge asked petitioner no questions about the plea, and petitioner did not address the court. Alabama then held a jury proceeding to determine punishment, after which the jury sentenced petitioner to death on each indictment. On appeal, the record contained no affirmative showing that the guilty pleas were entered intelligently and voluntarily.

Issue

Whether a state trial court may accept a defendant's guilty plea when the record is silent as to whether the plea was made intelligently and voluntarily. More specifically, may waiver of the constitutional rights surrendered by a guilty plea be presumed from a silent record?

Rule

A guilty plea in a state criminal case is valid only if the record affirmatively shows that it was entered intelligently and voluntarily. Because a guilty plea waives the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, the right to trial by jury, and the right to confront one's accusers, waiver of those federal constitutional rights cannot be presumed from a silent record.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a felony prosecution in Columbus, Ohio, Devin Morris appeared with retained counsel and entered a guilty plea to burglary. The transcript shows only that the clerk read the charge, defense counsel said "guilty," and the judge accepted the plea without asking Devin any questions or hearing Devin speak.

If Devin later challenges the plea on direct review, what is the strongest argument under the governing constitutional rule?

Explanation. A guilty plea is itself a conviction, not merely an admission, and it waives important federal constitutional rights. Under the majority rule, a court may not presume waiver of those rights from a silent record. Because the transcript contains no affirmative showing that Devin's plea was intelligent and voluntary, acceptance of the plea was constitutional error.