United States v. Gimenez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The defendant, Gregorio T. Gimenez, was charged with the crime of bigamy (illegal marriage). Upon arraignment, he entered a plea of "not guilty." Procedural History: After the prosecution presented three witnesses, the trial was suspended. Upon reconvening, the defendant's counsel informed the court that the defendant wished to withdraw his plea of "not guilty" and substitute it with a plea of "guilty." The court then rendered a judgment condemning the defendant to six years and one day of prision mayor based on this substituted plea. The Petition: The defendant appealed the judgment, raising the legality of his conviction on a plea of guilty entered by his counsel.
Issue(s)
Whether a conviction for a felony can be based on a plea of guilty entered by the defendant's counsel. Whether the defendant can be put on trial again for the same offense after the judgment of conviction was set aside at his instance.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment appealed from and ordered a new trial for the defendant. The Court held that a plea of guilty to a felony must be entered by the defendant himself in open court, and a plea entered by counsel is a nullity. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the defendant could be retried for the same offense without violating the principle of double jeopardy, as his appeal and the subsequent annulment of the judgment at his request opened the case for a new trial.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of a plea of guilty entered by counsel: The Court emphasized the clear distinction between felonies and misdemeanors regarding pleas. For felonies, General Orders No. 58, Section 25, explicitly states that "A plea of guilty can be put in only by the defendant himself in open court." The word "only" was interpreted as restrictive, prohibiting anyone else, including counsel, from entering such a plea for the accused. Therefore, a plea of guilty entered by counsel for a felony is a nullity, and no conviction can stand on such a plea. The Court cited provisions from the Penal Code of California and its jurisprudence to support this interpretation, noting that a plea by an attorney for the defendant in cases of felony is a nullity. On the issue of double jeopardy: The Court acknowledged that legal jeopardy had attached when the defendant pleaded guilty. However, it explained that by appealing the judgment and seeking its reversal, the defendant waived his right to claim double jeopardy. The Court relied on the ruling in Trono vs. United States, which held that when an accused obtains a new trial at his own request, he must accept the burden with the benefit and go back for a new trial of the whole case. The constitutional provision against double jeopardy was not intended to cover cases where a judgment has been annulled at the request of the accused, thus making a new trial permissible without violating the principle.
Main Doctrine
A plea of guilty to a felony, entered by counsel for the accused, is a nullity and cannot form the basis of a conviction, as the law requires the defendant himself to enter such plea in open court.