 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Lehi6/26/2003
early evidences some confusion regarding the crime of DUI as allegedly committed by Defendant. On the one hand, it says, "I have read [the information], or had it read to me, and I understand the nature and elements of crime to which I am pleading guilty . . . ." However, that statement is then followed by an inapplicable list of DUI elements, i.e., the elements pertaining to the "blood or breath alcohol concentration" prong. Based on that portion of the affidavit, we must conclude that the record does not adequately demonstrate that Defendant understood the nature and elements of the DUI charge actually applicable to him.
Another problem exists in the affidavit. It states that the fact that Defendant drove his car after he "had been drinking" "prove the elements of the crime to which [he was] pleading guilty." However, that statement is not correct. Drinking alcohol and then driving, without more, is not a crime in Utah. One commits the crime of DUI only if one drives, having consumed enough alcohol to register "a blood or breath alcohol concentration of .08 grams or greater," as demonstrated by a subsequent chemical test, or drives when "under the influence of alcohol . . . to a degree that renders the person incapable of safely operating a vehicle." Utah Code Ann. § 41-6-44(2)(a)(i)-(ii) (Supp. 2000). Therefore, Defendant's statement that his driving after he "had been drinking" satisfies the elements of DUI demonstrates a misunderstanding of the nature and elements of the DUI crime.
The trial court was obligated to clarify these discrepancies during the plea colloquy. See State v. Maguire, 830 P.2d 216, 217 (Utah 1992). It should have acknowledged the inconsistency between the information and the affidavit, informed Defendant that the affidavit's description of the DUI elements was inapplicable to his case, described to Defendant the "incapable of safely operating a vehicle" prong, and asked Defendant if he would admit the facts required by that prong, i.e., that he operated or was in actual physical control of a vehicle while intoxicated to such a degree that he was incapable of safely operating a vehicle. Since the court failed to make these clarifications, it did not strictly comply with rule 11 in accepting Defendant's guilty plea. Therefore, the trial court exceeded its discretion in denying Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
CONCLUSION
Because the trial court failed to comply strictly with rule 11(e)(4)(A) of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure in taking Defendant's guilty plea, we reverse the trial court's denial of his motion. We remand with instructions to allow Defendant to withdraw his guilty plea and for such other proceedings as may now be appropriate.
Gregory K. Orme, Judge
WE CONCUR:
Judith M. Billings, Associate Presiding Judge
William A. Thorne Jr., Judge
Page 1 2 3 4 Utah DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|