 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Beckstead9/30/2004
the plea hearing and compare Defendant's demeanor at that hearing to his demeanor at the motion hearing. After reviewing the tape, the court found that Defendant was not intoxicated when he entered his plea and that his plea was both voluntary and knowing.
**18 Because the trial court clearly complied with the requirements of rule 11, Defendant is essentially left with the claim that the trial court's finding that Defendant was not intoxicated is erroneous. This court will "not overturn factual findings supporting a denial of a motion to withdraw unless they are clearly erroneous." State v. Benvenuto, 1999 UT 60, 13, 983 P.2d 556. Defendant has not properly challenged the court's findings; even if he had, the findings are not clearly erroneous. The evidence [FN2] in the record supports the trial court's finding that Defendant was not intoxicated, and the trial court's findings support its decision to deny Defendant's motion to withdraw his plea.
FN2. As the majority noted, the trial judge reviewed a tape of Defendant's plea and stated, "I didn't see slurred speech, I didn't see wavering or, or having trouble standing up or talking at all. I mean, [he] seemed to understand all of the questions that I put to [him] and [his]
answers appeared to be articulate and coherent."
**19 The majority makes much of the fact that the trial court was on notice that Defendant had consumed alcohol prior to the hearing; *273 therefore, according to the majority, the trial court had a heightened responsibility to inquire further into Defendant's sobriety. Instead of adding new requirements to the rule 11 procedure, this court should give due deference to a trial judge's ability to appraise demeanor evidence. See State v. Hollen, 2002 UT 35, 64, 44 P.3d 794.
**20 Rather than defer to the trial court's firsthand observation of Defendant's conduct, the majority, without authority, would graft additional requirements into the rule 11 colloquy when a trial court is on notice that a defendant has been drinking alcohol prior to a plea hearing. The majority, however, fails to define what those requirements would be or to explain why they would be appropriate. For example, the majority declares that at a minimum, the trial court should have inquired into the amount of alcohol that Defendant had consumed or the amount of time that had elapsed since the alcohol consumption. However, at the same time the majority opinion recognizes "the well-known tendency of persons to understate their alcohol intake and level of intoxication when asked by representatives of the justice system." Even if there were some basis for this assertion, it supports the notion that further inquiry into Defendant's sobriety, against the backdrop of a thorough rule 11 colloquy, would have revealed little.
**21 According to the majority, neither Defendant's self-evaluation that he was not intoxicated nor his outward appearance of sobriety was sufficient to satisfy the trial court's obligation to ensure that Defendant's plea was knowing and voluntary. In concluding that the trial court lacked an adequate factual basis to determine that Defendant was not intoxicated, the majority points out that the court "took no steps to determine [Defendant's] level of intoxication." The majority, however, fails to demonstrate a legal relationship between the amount of alcohol consumed by a defendant and his ability to make a knowing and voluntary plea. Even if a blood-alcohol level were available, the majority's standard does not demonstrate how a trial court, without relying on observation, could determine when a defendant is so intoxicated that he cannot make a knowing and voluntary plea.
**22 I conclude that the trial court strictly complied with rule 11 and that it is inappropriate f
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.
|
|