Warner v. Morris

12 Citing cases

  1. Brooks v. Morris

    709 P.2d 310 (Utah 1985)   Cited 10 times
    Stating that “the record as a whole affirmatively establishes that [the defendant] entered his plea with full knowledge and understanding of its consequences.”

    This is an appeal from a denial of a petition for habeas corpus. The companion case of Warner v. Morris, 709 P.2d 309, (1985), is dispositive. In 1981, appellant pleaded guilty to second degree murder.

  2. State v. Kay

    717 P.2d 1294 (Utah 1986)   Cited 28 times
    Holding the harmless error doctrine applies to rule 11 violations because otherwise "we would encourage defendants . . . to attack their convictions for purely tactical reasons, either by direct appeal or by seeking habeas corpus long after the fact"

    A party is no more entitled to a perfect plea proceeding than he is to a perfect trial. See Warner v. Morris, Utah, 709 P.2d 309 (1985) (failure to follow letter of Rule 11 does not render plea void). III

  3. State v. Miller

    718 P.2d 403 (Utah 1986)   Cited 34 times
    Holding that where defendant alleged that he was not fully advised of the consequences of the plea but failed to provide a transcript of the plea colloquy proving as much, the regularity of the proceeding would be presumed

    We have held that the absence of a finding under this section is not critical so long as the record as a whole affirmatively establishes that the defendant entered his plea with full knowledge and understanding of its consequences and of the rights he was waiving. Brooks v. Morris, Utah, 709 P.2d 310 (1985); Warner v. Morris, Utah, 709 P.2d 309 (1985). In the instant case, defendant has not supplied us with a transcript of the arraignment hearing where he entered his guilty plea or with any other evidence that the court failed to fully explain the consequences of the plea. If an appellant fails to provide an adequate record on appeal, this Court must assume the regularity of the proceedings below.

  4. State v. Vasilacopulos

    756 P.2d 92 (Utah Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 15 times
    Applying the pre– Gibbons substantial compliance test and holding that the record as a whole did not demonstrate that the defendant was aware of the possibility of consecutive sentencing

    See also R.Prac.Dist. Cir.Cts. 3.6. Defendant claims the trial court failed to find he understood the nature and elements of the offenses and the possibility of the imposition of consecutive sentences, in violation of subsections 4 and 5 of Rule 11(e). In the companion cases of Warner v. Morris, 709 P.2d 309 (Utah 1985), and Brooks v. Morris, 709 P.2d 310 (Utah 1985), the trial courts substantially followed the litany required by Rule 11(e). In Warner, however, the court failed to ask defendant whether he was aware he had a right against compulsory self-incrimination.

  5. State v. Hickman

    779 P.2d 670 (Utah 1989)   Cited 12 times
    Refusing to set aside guilty pleas to aggravated robbery because the "[d]efendants' entry into the home of the victims with sawed-off shotguns constituted the attempt, since it was a substantial step towards the commission of the offense"

    The trial court then witnessed the affidavit previously signed by Dean. The record as a whole thus affirmatively establishes that Dean entered his guilty plea free from threats or promises. Warner v. Morris, 709 P.2d 309 (Utah 1985) (citing North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970); Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970); Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969)). State v. Gibbons had not been decided at the time defendants entered their pleas.

  6. Jolivet v. Cook

    784 P.2d 1148 (Utah 1990)   Cited 33 times
    Recognizing that the defendant was informed of the statutory criteria for each of the “crimes charged, and the facts, in element form, that make out each element” during a preliminary hearing and in the charging documents

    However, this Court has held, "[T]he absence of a finding under [section 77-35-11] is not critical so long as the record as a whole affirmatively establishes that the defendant entered his plea with full knowledge and understanding of its consequences and of the rights he was waiving." State v. Miller, 718 P.2d 403, 405 (Utah 1986); Brooks v. Morris, 709 P.2d 310, 311 (Utah 1985); Warner v. Morris, 709 P.2d 309, 310 (Utah 1985). Following the evidentiary hearing held on the motion to withdraw, Judge Brian made specific findings that Jolivet entered his guilty pleas knowingly and voluntarily.

  7. State v. Gentry

    797 P.2d 456 (Utah Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 2 times

    In cases considered prior to 1987, the Utah Supreme Court held that the record as a whole may affirmatively establish that defendant entered his or her guilty plea with full knowledge and understanding of its consequences and of the rights waived. State v. Miller, 718 P.2d 403, 405 (Utah 1986) (per curiam); Warner v. Morris, 709 P.2d 309, 310 (Utah 1985); Brooks v. Morris, 709 P.2d 310, 311 (Utah 1985) (per curiam). In State v. Gibbons, 740 P.2d 1309 (Utah 1987), however, the supreme court modified its prior decisions and held that the trial court has the burden of ensuring that Rule 11(5) requirements are complied with when a guilty plea is entered.

  8. State v. Pharris

    798 P.2d 772 (Utah Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 6 times

    Prior to 1987, the Utah Supreme Court did not require strict compliance with Rule 11. The court had concluded that a guilty plea may be upheld if "the record as a whole affirmatively establishes that defendant entered his plea with full knowledge and understanding of its consequences." Warner v. Morris, 709 P.2d 309, 310 (Utah 1985) (mem.); see also Brooks v. Morris, 709 P.2d 310, 311 (Utah 1985) (per curiam). This "record as a whole" test was later reaffirmed in State v. Miller, 718 P.2d 403, 405 (Utah 1986) (per curiam).

  9. State v. Hoff

    814 P.2d 1119 (Utah 1991)   Cited 32 times
    Refusing to apply a rule retroactively when “[t]he strict compliance rule announced in Gibbons was ... a clear break with this Court's rulings in previous cases dealing with the validity of guilty pleas”

    Prior to our decision in Gibbons, a guilty plea was valid and could not be withdrawn if the trial court demonstrated substantial compliance with Rule 11. See State v. Miller, 718 P.2d 403, 405 (Utah 1986); State v. Kay, 717 P.2d 1294, 1299-1302 (Utah 1986); Warner v. Morris, 709 P.2d 309, 310 (Utah 1985); Brooks v. Morris, 709 P.2d 310, 311 (Utah 1985); State v. Vasilacopulos, 756 P.2d 92, 94-95 (Utah Ct.App. 1988), cert. denied, 765 P.2d 1278 (Utah 1988). In cases decided after Gibbons involving guilty pleas entered before the issuance of Gibbons, we have applied the pre- Gibbons substantial compliance standard.

  10. State v. Gardner

    844 P.2d 293 (Utah 1992)   Cited 5 times
    Noting that a jury would not necessarily believe defendant's testimony concerning his mental state during a murder

    See State v. Hoff, 814 P.2d 1119, 1123-24 (Utah 1991) ( Gibbons should not be applied to guilty pleas taken before it was issued).Jolivet v. Cook, 784 P.2d 1148, 1149 (Utah 1989) (quoting State v. Miller, 718 P.2d 403, 405 (Utah 1986)); see also Brooks v. Morris, 709 P.2d 310, 311 (Utah 1985); Warner v. Morris, 709 P.2d 309, 310 (Utah 1985). We review the ultimate decision to deny a motion to withdraw a guilty plea under an abuse of discretion standard.