DC Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz denied a homicide defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea on July 10.
Michael Garrett, 70, pleaded guilty on March 19 to second-degree murder while armed for his alleged involvement in the blunt force trauma death of 71-year-old Sylvia Matthews. The incident occurred at Matthews’ home on the unit block of Elmira Street, SW, on Dec. 3, 2021. Mathews’ succumbed to her injuries on Dec. 4, 2021.
In exchange for his guilty plea, the prosecution dismissed the pending charges of first-degree premeditated murder while armed, felony murder while armed, first-degree burglary, first-degree attempted burglary, two counts of destruction of property $1,000 or more, and destruction of property less than $1,000. Parties agreed to 21-to-26 years of imprisonment, subject to the judge’s approval at sentencing.
At his scheduled sentencing on May 29, Garrett said that he wanted to withdraw the plea.
Three pillars are considered when a defendant motions to withdraw a guilty plea: whether the defendant has asserted legal innocence, the length of time between the guilty plea and the desire to withdraw, and whether the attorney was competent throughout the case.
On June 10, Garrett’s attorney, Wole Falodun, filed a motion to withdraw the guilty plea. According to court documents, Falodun claimed Garrett’s innocence was the basis for his withdrawal. Falodun explained in the motion that in his client’s alleged involvement in Mathews’ death he was acting to “disengage contact” with the victim and did not intend “to kill [Matthews] or cause serious bodily injury.”
“All this stuff is mind boggling… it’s a lie,” said Garrett in court about the prosecution’s theory of the case.
Garrett explained that in the two months between the acceptance of the plea deal and his sentencing he came to realize the time in prison asked for in the plea deal is “the rest of [his] natural life.” Garrett said he also took issue with the wording of the plea agreement. Specifically, the “deliberate intent” aspect of the charge.
“There was no deliberate intent, there was no weapon, there was no malice,” Garrett asserted.
When Judge Kravitz asked Garrett about a cane covered in Matthews’ blood found next to her, Garrett said there was no cane. He said if there was one it was “moved by the police department or the prosecution or whatever.”
Throughout the hearing, Garrett claimed that he was involved in a romantic relationship with Matthews and just wanted Judge Kravitz to “understand [his] frame of mind.”
Judge Kravitz asked Garrett why he took the plea offer. Garrett claimed Falodun “strenuously encouraged” him to accept it.
“It is a very weak assertion,” said Judge Kravitz.
The judge explained that a defense attorney should advise on these decisions in their client’s best interest, but the client has the final decision.
“Everything that the defendant has stated is so factually inconsistent with the evidence in this case,” said the prosecutor.
The prosecution explained that they had surveillance evidence from Mathews’ home and body-worn camera footage of the incident that they claim directly contradicts Garrett’s claim of innocence. They also consulted a blood splatter expert that concluded the injuries Mathews sustained were consistent with blunt force trauma from an object.
In addition, the prosecution said that Garrett reportedly has had an “obsession” with Mathews since the 1980s. They also referenced an “absolutely atrocious” assault Garrett allegedly committed against Mathews in the 1990s.
“I would relish the opportunity to try this case, it’s not an appropriate reason,” said the prosecutor.
Judge Kravitz denied Garrett’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, emphasizing that Garrett’s claim of legal innocence is discredited by surveillance videos of the incident and a history of prior threats against the victim. The judge also said it appeared to him Garrett’s desire to withdraw the plea “was voiced out of anger when he learned that so many of Ms. Mathews’ friends were planning to speak at his sentencing.”
However, Judge Kravitz also said he is not familiar with case law regarding the credibility of a claim of legal innocence. Falodun told the judge he will file a written brief for the court to reconsider the denial. The prosecution said that if the judge is unable to rule on the defense’s filing they want the opportunity to cross-examine Garrett at a motions hearing.
Parties are slated to reconvene Aug. 18.
