Celeb Scope

Influencer & Social Media Stars

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

Team Celeb Scope 0


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

As Starcasm was the first to report, Love during lockdown and Life after lockdown Star LaTisha Collier is trying get out of a plea deal she agreed in April in which he 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 your prior felony convictions. The habitual offender enhancement meant LaTisha faced a minimum of three years in prison before being eligible for parole.

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

Details of LaTisha Collier's guilty plea.

PROSECUTORS RESPONSE TO LATISHA’S MOTION TO DISMISS DELICATION AGREEMENT

A deputy county attorney filed a response to LaTisha’s arrest motion Thursday. The response lays out the criteria for a plea deal to be withdrawn and then clearly points out why LaTisha doesn’t meet any of those criteria.

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

Regarding possible flaws in LaTisha’s statement:

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

If there was a defect in the plea, Iowa precedent states that the withdrawal could be denied if the plea agreement had been signed “more likely than not” even if there was no defect.

Defendant’s statements in the motion are best characterized as ambivalent. Statements like “I am struggling to know whether I would have made a different decision if I had completely separated the timeline in my head” and “I feel that I may not have fully evaluated my judgment options separately for each case” cannot be mistaken as conclusive in any way.

The defendant does not claim that she would not have pleaded guilty if she had known which case was going to be tried. At best, they characterize a general reluctance in case management strategy. Ultimately, the statements do not demonstrate that defendant would not have pleaded guilty if the defect had not occurred under the applicable “more likely than not” standard.

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

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

The claims are irrelevant because the case was scheduled for trial a month early, on March 13, and the defendant appeared at the final pretrial conference on April 8 to meet with her attorney about both cases. The statements were not signed until April 10, suggesting that another meeting had occurred between the defendant and her lawyer. The schedule strongly suggests that defendant knowingly and voluntarily signed the written guilty pleas.

Furthermore, 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 be able to choose which case to take to trial. This negates the defendant’s claims of having the opportunity to “litigate the forgery/identity theft matters later.”

The defendant’s statements are self-serving and are made more than a month after pleading guilty in both cases. Therefore, the court must determine that there is no good cause that would allow the defendant to withdraw her guilty pleas.

Allowing the withdrawal of guilty pleas made close to the trial date due to “pending trial pressure” would turn guilty pleas into a weapon. Defendants on the eve of trial could plead guilty and then withdraw their guilty pleas at will to delay their trials. The State and its witnesses would suffer great harm because delays can cause witnesses to become unavailable (departure from jurisdiction, death, etc.) or digital evidence to be accidentally deleted.

Granting a motion like Defendant’s would empower all defendants facing an imminent trial in which a conviction appears likely to delay their trial and hope for better prospects at a later trial date. As such, granting a motion to withdraw 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, his sentencing is scheduled for the end of July.

Asa Hawks is a writer and editor at Starcasm. You can contact Asa through Twitter, Facebookor send email to starcasmtips(at)yahoo.com




Related Story

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *