The Alford Doctrine is pretty simple. Based on North Carolina v. Alford, it simply states that a defendant may plead guilty while disputing some of the facts that form the basis for that plea. You can easily see how this is possible. The police report claims that the defendant did X, Y and Z, but the defendant is adamant that he did only Y. Y, unfortunately, is sufficient to get him convicted. So his attorney requests that the plea be an Alford plea. In 99% of cases where I’ve dealt with Alford pleas, the judge doesn’t care - he says, pretty much, “Ok, whatever”, then goes on to canvass the defendant, including a bit about the Alford plea.
A nolo plea is entered with the express intent to appeal a legal ruling, such as a motion to suppress.
没有评论:
发表评论