| | |

Prosecutors respond to LaTisha Collier trying to get out of her plea deal

ByAsa Hawks

Prosecutors reply to LaTisha Collier trying to get out of her guilty plea deal.

As Starcasm was the first to report, Love During Lockup and Life After Lockup star LaTisha Collier is trying to get out of a plea deal she agreed to in April in which she pleaded guilty to felony theft and forgery charges.

In addition to pleading guilty to the charges, LaTisha also acknowledged that she would be sentenced as a habitual offender due to her prior felony convictions. The habitual offender enhancement meant LaTisha was facing a minimum of three years in prison before being eligible for parole.

In LaTisha’s motion to undo the plea deal, she argued she felt pressure due to a pending trial date for one of the cases. She also had “growing concerns about the strength of the State’s evidence and the credibility issues surrounding key witnesses.”

LaTisha Collier guilty plea details.

PROSECUTORS RESPOND TO LATISHA’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLEA DEAL

An Assistant County Attorney filed a response to LaTisha’s Motion In Arrest Of Judgment on Thursday. The response lays out the criteria for having a plea agreement withdrawn, then clearly points out why LaTisha meets none of those criteria.

In Iowa, a defendant is allowed to withdraw a guilty plea if there are defects in the plea, there is good cause, or it is in the interests of justice.

In regards to potential defects in LaTisha’s plea:

The Defendant pled guilty to two Class D felonies. As such, the defendant, with the court’s consent, entered written guilty pleas under Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.8(4). The written pleas provide a factual basis for the crimes pled to and indicate that the plea is being knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. The pleas substantially comply with Rule 2.8(4) and there are no defects in the written pleas signed by the defendant on April 10th. Therefore, the Defendant should not be allowed to withdraw the guilty pleas under Rule 2.24(3).

If there was a defect in the plea, Iowa precedent states the withdrawal could be denied if the plea deal would have “more likely than not” been entered even if there were no defect.

The defendant’s statements in the motion are best characterized as ambivalent. Statements like “I’m struggling with whether I would have made a different decision had I fully separated the timeline mentally” and “I feel I may not have fully evaluated my trial options separately for each case” cannot be mistaken as conclusive in any way.

The defendant does not assert that she wouldn’t have pled if she knew which case was set for trial. At best, they characterize a general reluctance in case management strategy. Ultimately, the statements do not show that the defendant would not have pled guilty if the defect had not occurred under the applicable standard of “more likely than not”.

What about LaTisha’s claim that she signed the plea because she felt pressured due to a looming trial date?

The defendant’s motion fails to establish good cause for withdrawal. The motion asserts that the defendant did not know which case had been set for trial for the following Monday and that the plea was signed under the pressure of that impending trial.

The claims are immaterial because the case has been set for trial a full month beforehand on March 13th and the defendant appeared for final pretrial conference on April 8th to meet with her attorney regarding both cases. The pleas were not signed until April 10th, suggesting that another meeting between the defendant and her attorney had taken place. The timeline strongly suggests that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily signed the written pleas of guilty.

Additionally, the plea offer (as well as the previous offer) was made with the understanding that both cases would be resolved together. The defendant would not get to pick and choose which case to take to trial. This negates the defendant’s claims about having the opportunity to “litigate the forgery/identity theft matters later.”

The defendant’s claims are self-serving and made over a month after entering the guilty pleas for both cases. Therefore, the court should find that no good cause exists to allow the defendant to withdraw her guilty pleas.

Allowing the withdrawal of guilty pleas made close to a trial date because of the “pressure of pending trial” would weaponize guilty pleas. Defendants who are on the eve of trial could plead guilty and then withdraw their guilty pleas at will in order to delay their trials. The State and its witnesses would suffer a great prejudice because delays can result in witnesses becoming unavailable (moving out of jurisdiction, death, etc.) or digital evidence accidentally being deleted.

Granting a motion like Defendant’s would empower every defendant facing an imminent trial where a conviction seems likely to delay their trial and hope for better prospects at a later trial date. As such, granting a motion for withdrawal would not be in the interests of justice and should be denied.

There is a hearing scheduled for next week to address Latisha’s motion. If denied, her sentencing is scheduled for the end of July.


Asa Hawks is a writer and editor for Starcasm. You can contact Asa via Twitter, Facebook, or email at starcasmtips(at)yahoo.com

Similar Posts