 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Beckstead9/30/2004
lea.
FN3. A trial court's obligations flowing from rule 11 are designed to assure fairness and protect defendants, including those who choose to consume alcohol before a court appearance or even attempt to mislead the court about that alcohol consumption. We note, however, that at least one other jurisdiction has found such behavior to be grounds for exercise of the court's contempt powers. See Burradell v. State, 326 Ark. 182, 931 S.W.2d 100, 103 (1996).
CONCLUSION
**12 The trial court was on notice that Beckstead had been drinking prior to his plea hearing, but took no steps to determine his level of intoxication or otherwise establish that Beckstead's guilty plea, and its accompanying waiver of constitutional rights, was truly knowing. Under these circumstances, there was an inadequate factual basis upon which the trial court could conclude that Beckstead was sufficiently sober to enter a knowing plea, and the court erred when it denied Beckstead's motion to withdraw his plea. We reverse the trial court's decision and remand this matter for further proceedings.
**13 I CONCUR: NORMAN H. JACKSON, Judge.
*272 DAVIS, Judge (dissenting):
**14 I respectfully dissent. Although Defendant argues that the trial court failed to satisfy the requirements of rule 11 of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure when it accepted his guilty plea, Defendant's appeal is in essence a collateral challenge to the trial court's entire rule 11 colloquy and its later factual finding that Defendant was not intoxicated at the time he entered his plea.
**15 The primary purpose of rule 11(e) "is to insure that when a defendant enters a guilty plea and thereby waives important constitutional rights, ... he or she acts freely and voluntarily, with full knowledge of the consequences of the plea." State v. Gamblin, 2000 UT 44, 11, 1 P.3d 1108 (quotations and citation omitted). Moreover, "[s]trict compliance with rule 11(e) creates a presumption that the plea was voluntarily entered." Id.
**16 The trial court clearly complied with the explicit requirements of rule 11(e) when it conducted a complete plea colloquy and accepted Defendant's plea. [FN1] By conducting a complete rule 11 colloquy, the court was able to evaluate Defendant's responses and observe his demeanor prior to accepting his plea. In addition to the dialogue from the plea hearing included in the majority opinion, the following colloquy took place before the trial court accepted Defendant's plea:
FN1. In his opening brief, Defendant acknowledges that the trial court went through a complete plea colloquy pursuant to rule 11 of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Court: All right. Now, anything else we need to cover before we take the plea, Mr. Beckstead?
Defendant: I just want to have time to get them [sic] animals and find somebody to take care of them. I'd appreciate that.
Court: Well, I'm not going to make you a guarantee. Okay? Would that make a difference?
Defendant: Well--
Court: On the plea?
Defendant: Not really.
Court: All right.
Defendant: I am (short inaudible, away from mic)
Court: All right. To the charge--
Defendant:--(short inaudible, no mic) cows. I don't have anybody to, to take care of them. I just need to get somebody up to take care of them. That's all, that's all I'm worried about is the cattle.
Court: All right. To the charge then of driving under the influence of alcohol on June 22nd of this year, how do you plead?
Defendant: Guilty.
Court: All right. I'll accept that plea.
This extended exchange between the trial court and Defendant gave the court further opportunity to determine whether Defendant was able to enter a knowing plea.
**17 At the hearing on the motion to withdraw, the court was able to review a tape of
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.
|
|