 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Lehi6/26/2003
("Rule 11(e) squarely places on trial courts the burden of ensuring that constitutional and Rule 11(e) requirements are complied with when a guilty plea is entered. . . . 'There is no adequate substitute for demonstrating in the record at the time the plea is entered the defendant's understanding of the nature of the charge against him.'") (emphasis in original) (quoting McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 470, 89 S. Ct. 1166, 1173 (1969)); State v. Mora, 2003 UT App 117, -20, 69 P.3d 838 (reiterating this requirement and holding that defendant's "affidavit was not properly incorporated into the record" because "the trial court made no inquiry into whether [defendant] had read, understood, and acknowledged the affidavit"). See also State v. Smith, 812 P.2d 470, 476-77 (Utah Ct. App. 1991) (analyzing "the affidavit and colloquy together" since "the trial court carefully reviewed appellant's plea affidavit with appellant during the plea colloquy, and then incorporated the affidavit into the record of the plea hearing"), cert. denied, 836 P.2d 1383 (Utah 1992).
However, such affidavits and other documents must be treated as "only the starting point . . . . The trial judge should [still] review the statements in the affidavit with the defendant, question the defendant concerning his understanding of it, and fulfill the other requirements imposed by [rule 11] on the record before accepting the guilty plea." Gibbons, 740 P.2d at 1313-14. Furthermore, "' ny omissions or ambiguities in the affidavit must be clarified during the plea hearing.'" Maguire, 830 P.2d at 217 (quoting Smith, 812 P.2d at 477). Accord Mora, 2003 UT App 117 at .
ANALYSIS
Based on the above principles, we conclude that Defendant's plea affidavit was properly incorporated into the plea record. The trial court specifically asked Defendant if he had read and understood it, and Defendant replied that he had. The contents of the information filed against Defendant were also properly incorporated into the record, as Defendant acknowledged the information in his affidavit. See, e.g., State v. Penman, 964 P.2d 1157, 1161 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) (looking to information after acknowledging "the affidavits stated that [defendant] had received a copy of the information").
However, neither the plea colloquy nor the affidavit contains any mention of the preliminary hearing. Therefore, we cannot use the convenience store manager's or the investigating officer's testimony to judge the legal adequacy of Defendant's understanding of the nature and elements of his DUI charge. See State v. Maguire, 830 P.2d 216, 217 (Utah 1992). Rather, in assessing his understanding, we must limit ourselves to the plea colloquy, the affidavit, and the information.
A review of the information and affidavit reveals that an ambiguity existed. The information accurately describes both alternative prongs of the DUI crime: the "blood or breath alcohol concentration" prong and the "incapable of safely operating a vehicle" prong. See Utah Code Ann. § 41-6-44(2)(a) (Supp. 2000). However, the affidavit, which is the document in which Defendant formally demonstrated his understanding of " he elements of the crime to which [he was] pleading guilty," refers only to the "blood or breath alcohol concentration" prong. This is problematic because Defendant could not have been convicted under this prong in the absence of a blood or breath test. Since he could not have been convicted under the "blood or breath alcohol concentration" prong, he could have been convicted only under the "incapable of safely operating a vehicle" prong, and that prong was not referenced in the affidavit.
A plain reading of the affidavit cl
Page 1 2 3 4 Utah DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|