 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Beckstead9/30/2004
degree that it rendered you incapable of understanding what was going on that day.
The court then denied Beckstead's motion to withdraw his plea. Beckstead appeals.
*270 ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
**5 Beckstead argues that he was under the influence of alcohol at the time he entered his plea; that the trial court failed to adequately ensure that his guilty plea was knowing and voluntary after the judge had notice of his alcohol consumption the morning of the plea hearing; and that the trial court erred in denying his subsequent motion to withdraw his plea. "We review a trial court's denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea under an abuse-of-discretion standard." State v. Blair, 868 P.2d 802, 805 (Utah 1993). We apply a " ' "clearly erroneous" standard for the trial court's findings of fact made in conjunction with that decision.' " State v. Benvenuto, 1999 UT 60, 10, 983 P.2d 556 (quoting State v. Holland, 921 P.2d 430, 433 (Utah 1996)) (other citation omitted). However, "[i]n the context of rule 11 colloquies, 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. Hittle, 2004 UT 46, 4, 94 P.3d 268 (quoting Benvenuto, 1999 UT 60 at 10, 983 P.2d 556).
ANALYSIS
**6 The procedures for entering a guilty plea are set forth in rule 11 of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure. See State v. Benvenuto, 1999 UT 60, 11, 983 P.2d 556. " 'Rule 11(e) squarely places on trial courts the burden of ensuring that constitutional and [r]ule 11(e) requirements are complied with when a guilty plea is entered.' " Id. (quoting State v. Gibbons, 740 P.2d 1309, 1312 (Utah 1987)). "This 'strict compliance' rule requires the trial court to establish (1) that 'the defendant's guilty plea is truly knowing and voluntary,' and (2) that 'the defendant knowingly waived his or her constitutional rights and understood the elements of the crime.' " Id. (quoting State v. Abeyta, 852 P.2d 993, 995 (Utah 1993)).
**7 Beckstead's appeal presents the issue of what steps a trial court must take to ensure that a plea is knowing and voluntary once the court has been placed on notice that a defendant has been drinking alcohol just prior to the plea hearing. In this case, the court relied on Beckstead's assertion that he was not under the influence of alcohol, as well as the apparent absence of outward signs of intoxication, to determine that his alcohol consumption did not affect the knowing and voluntary nature of Beckstead's plea. Under the circumstances of this case, we cannot agree that this was sufficient.
**8 " '[M]ere general questions which ask whether a plea is "voluntary" are insufficient under [r]ule 11.' " State v. Mills, 898 P.2d 819, 824 (Utah Ct.App.1995) (quoting State v. Valencia, 776 P.2d 1332, 1335 (Utah Ct.App.1989)). Similarly, upon being placed on notice that Beckstead had been drinking, the trial court's reliance on Beckstead's general statement that he was "not under the influence" was insufficient to satisfy its rule 11 obligations to ensure that Beckstead had the capacity to knowingly and voluntarily enter a plea. This is particularly true in light of the well-known tendency of persons to understate their alcohol intake and level of intoxication to representatives of the justice system. See, e.g., Roylance v. Davies, 18 Utah 2d 395, 424 P.2d 142, 148 (Utah 1967) ("The defendant admits to a couple of drinks of whiskey. Hardly anyone ever admits to having taken more." (Crockett, C.J., dissenting)); see also State v. East, 743 P.2d 1211, 1211 (Utah 1987) (affirming driving under the influence conviction of driver who informed police that he had "had a couple of b
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Utah DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|