Opinion
No. 25439
Decided October 30, 1972.
Defendant, after pleading guilty to statutory rape, moved to withdraw that plea and enter a plea of not guilty. From denial of his motion he brings this appeal.
Reversed
1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Plea of Guilty — Statutory Rape — Failure to Comply — Rule — Withdrawal — Proper. Where trial court failed to comply with Crim. P. 11, which prohibits acceptance of a guilty plea without first determining if guilty plea was made with an understanding of the nature and elements of the crime, held, under these circumstances, defendant was entitled to withdraw his plea of guilty to the charge of statutory rape.
2. Plea of Guilty — Acceptance — Fulfillment — Conditions — Rule. The acceptance of a plea of guilty depends upon the fulfillment of certain conditions, and absent the fulfillment of these conditions there can be no acceptance of a plea of guilty under the rule.
3. Plea of Guilty — Acceptance — Elements — Exploration — Understandable — Meaning — Rule. The requirement of Crim. P. 11 pertaining to the acceptance of a plea of guilty is not met unless the critical elements of the crime are explained in terms which are understandable to the defendant and unless the meaning of a guilty plea is explained in relation to each of the elements.
Appeal from the District Court of Montrose County, Honorable Fred Calhoun, Judge.
Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General, John P. Moore, Deputy, Patricia W. Robb, Assistant, for plaintiff-appellee.
Rollie R. Rogers, State Public Defender, J. D. MacFarlane, Chief Deputy, T. Michael Dutton, Deputy, for defendant-appellant.
Defendant Omar Gleason, after pleading guilty to statutory rape, moved to withdraw that plea and enter a plea of not guilty. His motion was denied and he was sentenced to the penitentiary.
On appeal, the defendant urges reversal on the ground that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for withdrawal of this guilty plea, since the guilty plea was not made with an understanding of the nature and elements of the crime. The thrust of the defendant's argument is that the court failed to comply with Crim. P. 11. The answer brief of the Attorney General advises us that the trial court did not comply with the requirements of Crim. P. 11 and states that the judgment should therefore be reversed.
The Attorney General's advice is supported by the record. We therefore reverse the trial court's judgment and remand this cause for further proceedings including the rearraignment of this defendant.
In Martinez v. People, 152 Colo. 521, 382 P.2d 990 (1963), we discussed the requirements of Crim. P. 11 and with reference thereto held:
"The acceptance of a plea of guilty depends upon the fulfillment of certain conditions. Absent the fulfillment of these conditions, there can be no acceptance of a plea of guilty under this rule."
The duty of the trial court under Crim. P. 11 was further explained in People v. Cumby, 178 Colo. 31, 495 P.2d 223 (1972). Referring specifically to the need for a determination of defendant's knowledge and understanding of the charge's elements which was lacking in the instant case, we held in Cumby:
". . . that this requirement is not met unless the critical elements of the crime charged are explained in terms which are understandable to the defendant and unless the meaning of a guilty plea is explained in relation to each of the elements."
See also People v. Colosacco, 177 Colo. 219, 493 P.2d 650 (1972); People v. Mason, 176 Colo. 544, 491 P.2d 138 (1971); People v. Riney, 176 Colo. 221, 489 P.2d 130 (1971); and People v. Randolph, 175 Colo. 454, 488 P.2d 203 (1971) for analogous holdings.
The judgment is reversed and this cause is remanded for further proceedings consonant with the directions herein set forth.