The state Court of Criminal Appeals has upheld a decision to deny post-conviction relief to Michael Derrick Huskins, who is currently serving a  life without parole sentence for the brutal murder of his former sister-in-law, Alicia Gale Burger in 2003. Huskins entered a guilty plea to felony murder in January 2006.

In January 2007, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming that his guilty plea was involuntary and his attorneys did not fully explain the consequences of the plea agreement. Criminal Judge Carroll Ross held a hearing in September 2007 and later denied the petition. Huskins appealed, and the Court of Criminal Appeals last month affirmed Ross’s decision.

According to information provided by the state during Huskins’ guilty plea, witnesses saw Huskins entering Burger’s home, then Burger entering the home and Huskins later leaving. Her body was found later, having been strangled, stabbed three times, beaten, shot five times and her throat cut. When Huskins was picked up, blood from the victim was found on his underwear.

At the post-conviction hearing, Huskins testified that his attorneys focused on trying to get him to plead guilty to the charges because the state had filed a notice seeking the death penalty. He said he pled guilty because the attorneys had told him he would never be able to see his family again if he was on death row. He also said that even though he knew the plea agreement provided for a sentence of life without parole, he believed he would be eligible for parole after 32 years. He acknowledged telling the trial judge that he had not been threatened to enter his guilty plea but insisted he had been tricked into pleading guilty. He said he agreed to plead guilty so he could maintain visitation with his family.

Huskins’ attorney said he was confident that Huskins knew what he was doing when the guilty plea was entered. He said he did not tell Huskins he would not be able to see his family if he was on death row. He said he felt it was in Huskins’ best interests to enter the guilty plea because there was a good possibility a jury could give him the death penalty due to the nature of the crime. Huskins’ co-counsel also said she was sure Huskins understood the guilty plea and she, too, felt it was quite possible he could be sentenced to death, adding she had a hard time finding people to say good things about him if there were to be a death penalty hearing. She said she had discussed visitation with him and explained it would be different on death row but did not say he would be unable to see his family.

The Appeals Court determined that Huskins did not prove that his attorneys performed deficiently and that his plea agreement was voluntary.