 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Lehi6/26/2003
EHI: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Did you understand what you read? MR. LEHI: Yes. THE COURT: Do you swear to me that these statements are the truth? MR. LEHI: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: I'm required to personally advise you that I do not have to follow any sentencing recommendation the prosecutor may have agreed to make and I can impose the maximum sentence of up to five years in prison; do you understand that? MR. LEHI: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: I also need to be sure that you are acting of your own free will. Are you? MR. LEHI: Yes. THE COURT: To the charge of Driving Under The Influence Of Alcohol With Two Previous Convictions, a Third Degree Felony, how do you plead? MR. LEHI: Ah, guilty. THE COURT: I find the defendant is aware of his legal and constitutional rights and that he has knowingly and voluntarily waived those rights and tendered those--this plea. I order that the plea be entered. The remaining counts are dismissed, pursuant to the plea agreement.
In accordance with the plea agreement, the prosecutor recommended to the trial court a sentence of ninety days in jail. However, when the trial court declined to follow the prosecutor's recommendation and instead sentenced Defendant "to a term in the Utah State Prison not to exceed five years," Defendant moved to withdraw his guilty plea on the ground that, among other things, it was taken in violation of rule 11(e)(4)(A) of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure. The trial court denied his motion, and Defendant now appeals.
ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
The issue in this case is whether the trial court sufficiently ensured, in taking Defendant's guilty plea, that Defendant "underst the nature and elements" of the DUI charge, as required by rule 11(e)(4)(A) of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Utah Supreme Court has set forth the following standard of review for rule 11 cases:
We review a trial court's denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea under an "abuse of discretion" standard, incorporating the "clearly erroneous" standard for the trial court's findings of fact made in conjunction with that decision. However, the ultimate question of whether the trial court strictly complied with constitutional and procedural requirements for entry of a guilty plea is a question of law that is reviewed for correctness.
State v. Holland, 921 P.2d 430, 433 (Utah 1996) (quoting State v. Blair, 868 P.2d 802, 805 (Utah 1993)).
GOVERNING LAW
The Utah Supreme Court requires trial courts to comply strictly with rule 11 in the taking of guilty pleas. See State v. Maguire, 830 P.2d 216, 217 (Utah 1992); State v. Gibbons, 740 P.2d 1309, 1312-14 (Utah 1987). Strict compliance, however, does not require trial courts to rely solely on the plea colloquy in ensuring that defendants understand their rights, see Maguire, 830 P.2d at 218 (" trict compliance can be accomplished by multiple means[.]"), nor does it "relegate[courts] to rote recitation of the rule 11 elements" during the colloquy. State v. Abeyta, 852 P.2d 993, 996 (Utah 1993) (per curiam).
Rather, in determining whether a defendant understands his or her rule 11 rights, a trial court is allowed to rely, to a certain extent, upon plea affidavits and other documents, see, e.g., State v. Smith, 777 P.2d 464, 465-66 (Utah 1989), so long as the court establishes on the record at the time the plea is entered that the defendant has read and understood those affidavits and documents. See Maguire, 830 P.2d at 217-18 & n.2 (articulating this requirement as to plea affidavits and stating that other documents can also be used if they are "similarly incorporated into the record"); Gibbons, 740 P.2d at 1312-13
Page 1 2 3 4 Utah DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|