Argued: March 7, 2018
A. McNamara, Esq. (orally), Drake Law, LLC, Berwick, for
appellant Danny L. Adams.
T. Mills, Attorney General, and Donald W. Macomber, Asst.
Atty. Gen. (orally), Office of the Attorney General, Augusta,
for appellee State of Maine.
SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and
Danny L. Adams appeals from a judgment of conviction of
manslaughter (Class A), 17-A M.R.S. § 2O3(1)(A) (2017),
entered by the trial court (Androscoggin County, MG
Kennedy, J.) following his unconditional open guilty
plea. Adams contends that his plea was
involuntary because he was coerced, in violation of his
constitutional rights against self-incrimination,
accept the truth of all of the facts recited by the State at
the plea hearing held pursuant to M.R.U. Crim. P. 11. He
further contends that he should not be required to show cause
as to why his appeal should not be dismissed pursuant to
State v. Huntley, 676 A.2d 501 (Me. 1996), and its
progeny, which hold that a defendant may not appeal from a
conviction entered upon his plea of guilty except in certain
circumstances. Adams did not move to withdraw his
unconditional plea before the court imposed the sentence and
does not assert that the trial court lacked jurisdiction or
that it imposed an excessive, cruel, or unusual sentence. We
dismiss the appeal. See id. at 503; State v.
Plummer, 2008 ME 22, ¶ 3, 939 A.2d 687.
The relevant facts are procedural and are not disputed. In
February 2015, Adams was charged by indictment with murder,
17-A M.R.S. §201(1)(B) (2017), and manslaughter (Class
A), 17-A M.R.S. § 2O3(1)(A), following the death of his
infant son. Two attorneys were appointed to represent him.
Following pretrial motions, a jury trial was scheduled for
February 17, 2017.
On February 8, 2017, Adams appeared with counsel and entered
an unconditional open guilty plea to the manslaughter count;
the State later dismissed the murder charge. See
M.R.U. Crim. P. 11. At the Rule 11 hearing, after Adams
explicitly waived his right to remain silent and the court
admonished him to "listen carefully, " the State
recited the evidence that it expected to present at trial,
which included Adams's statements to police officers that
numerous bruises on the child's forehead and around his
mouth likely resulted from him (Adams) forcefully putting the
baby's pacifier in his mouth two or three times, holding
it there by putting the palm of his hand on the pacifier and
spreading his fingers across the child's face, and then
putting the child face down in his crib with the pacifier
inserted and holding him down against the mattress.
Adams's counsel told the court that the State's
recitation was consistent with the discovery. The court then
engaged in a colloquy with Adams:
COURT: And do you have anything that you would like to
correct about what was just said?
ADAMS: No. No, Your Honor.
Q: And have you had enough time to speak with your attorney
about this matter?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Has he done the things that you have asked him to do in
terms of representing you?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Are you satisfied with his ...