“Voluntary Guilty Pleas” in a Washington State DUI Case

What Makes a Guilty Plea Voluntary in a Washington DUI Case?

When someone faces DUI charges in Tacoma or elsewhere in Washington, the process can move quickly. Often, the prosecutor will offer a plea deal before the case reaches trial. But how do courts determine whether a guilty plea is truly voluntary—and why does it matter?

At Smith & White, our Tacoma DUI defense attorneys routinely examine the validity of prior guilty pleas, especially in cases where the plea is being used to enhance a current charge. Whether you are facing your first DUI or a felony DUI based on a prior conviction, understanding how Washington law defines a voluntary guilty plea can make a critical difference in your case.

Why the Voluntariness of a Guilty Plea Matters

Under both Washington and federal law, a guilty plea must be made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently to be constitutional. If it is not, the resulting conviction could be challenged and potentially excluded from consideration in a later prosecution—especially if that prior conviction is being used to elevate a new DUI to a felony.

In Washington, felony DUI charges often arise when the defendant has a history of certain prior offenses, such as vehicular assault or previous DUI convictions. If the prosecution relies on a prior guilty plea to establish that criminal history, the defense has a right to challenge the validity of that plea.

Legal Standard for Voluntariness in Washington

The Washington Supreme Court has consistently held that a plea is valid only if it is made with a full understanding of the consequences. This includes:

• The nature of the charges
• The potential penalties involved
• The rights the defendant is giving up by pleading guilty (such as the right to a jury trial, the right to confront witnesses, and the right against self-incrimination)

Courts look to the totality of the circumstances when evaluating voluntariness. This includes examining the record for any indications that the defendant was coerced, misled, or lacked necessary information.

Case Example: Challenging a Prior Guilty Plea

Let’s say a Tacoma resident is charged with felony DUI. The prosecution argues that a prior conviction for vehicular assault five years earlier should count as a predicate offense, justifying the felony charge. However, the defense raises a critical issue: the defendant waived their right to counsel in that earlier case, and the waiver was not made knowingly or intelligently.

In such cases, Washington law requires the court to hold a hearing to determine whether the waiver—and thus the plea—was valid. If the defense can present a colorable claim that the plea was constitutionally flawed, the burden shifts to the State to prove the validity of the plea beyond a reasonable doubt.

Key Factors in Evaluating Voluntariness

Washington courts will consider several factors:

• Court colloquy at the time of the plea: Was the judge thorough in explaining rights and consequences?
• Defendant’s mental state and background: Did the defendant understand what was happening?
• Legal representation: Was the defendant advised by competent counsel—or did they knowingly waive that right?
• Plea documents: Do the written forms clearly explain the rights waived and the consequences?

If any of these elements are unclear or missing, it can cast doubt on the voluntariness of the plea.

Comparison to Federal Standards

The standard for voluntariness at the federal level mirrors Washington’s but adds some additional procedural protections. Under Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court held that courts must ensure on the record that the defendant understands the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea. This creates a constitutional floor that Washington courts follow, but state courts can impose additional requirements under state law.

Federal courts also place a high value on the role of counsel. If a defendant was not represented or their attorney was ineffective during the plea process, the entire conviction may be subject to vacatur.

How Other States Handle Voluntary Pleas

Some readers may have prior DUI convictions from outside Washington, particularly Oregon, Idaho, or California. While most states adhere to the same constitutional standard of voluntariness, the procedures differ:

• Oregon: Requires detailed plea petitions and judge-led colloquies. Oregon appellate courts have vacated DUI pleas where the trial record failed to demonstrate a clear understanding of consequences.
• California: Often requires a written waiver form in multiple languages and a full oral colloquy in court. Immigration warnings are mandatory.
• Idaho: Similar to Washington in requiring proof that the plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, but some rural counties may rely heavily on written advisements.

If your Washington DUI is being enhanced due to an out-of-state conviction, we will closely examine how that prior plea was handled under that state’s laws.

Consequences of an Involuntary Plea

If a court determines that a prior guilty plea was involuntary, that conviction may not be used to support a felony DUI charge. In some cases, the conviction itself may be vacated. This can have significant consequences for a defendant facing enhanced penalties.

Even in cases where the prior conviction is not being used for enhancement, a current plea must still meet the voluntariness standard. A defendant who pleads guilty to a current DUI charge without understanding the long-term consequences—such as license suspension, ignition interlock requirements, or potential immigration issues—may have grounds to challenge the plea later.

Realistic Hypothetical: What Happens If a Plea Is Invalidated?

Imagine a driver from Lakewood is charged with felony DUI in Pierce County. The State argues that the defendant has a qualifying prior from California. Upon review, we find that the California court never properly advised him of the immigration consequences of the plea. That failure could render the plea involuntary under California law—and by extension, inadmissible in the Washington proceeding.

We would file a motion to exclude the predicate offense. If the court agrees, the charge would revert to a misdemeanor, significantly reducing the potential penalties and improving our negotiating position.

Talk to a Tacoma DUI Defense Attorney

If you are facing DUI charges in Tacoma or Pierce County and are unsure about your prior record or the implications of a guilty plea, we can help. At Smith & White, our experienced defense lawyers will review your case in detail, challenge invalid prior pleas when necessary, and work to achieve the best possible outcome.

Facing DUI charges? Don’t navigate the system alone—reach out to our Tacoma office today.

This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is unique, and you should speak directly with a qualified attorney about your situation.