Crawford v. State, 84-199
Decision Date | 25 June 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 84-199,84-199 |
Citation | 701 P.2d 1150 |
Parties | Floyd CRAWFORD, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff). |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Leonard D. Munker, State Public Defender, Wyoming Public Defender Program, Martin J. McClain, Appellate Counsel, Cheyenne, and Victoria G. Huntoon, Laramie, for appellant (defendant).
A.G. McClintock, Atty. Gen., Gerald A. Stack, Deputy Atty. Gen., Crim. Div., John Renneisen, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Michael A. Blonigen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Cheyenne, for appellee (plaintiff).
Before THOMAS, C.J., and ROSE, ROONEY, BROWN and CARDINE, JJ.
Appellant Floyd Crawford appeals his conviction, which was based on a plea of guilty, and alleges error as follows:
We will reverse and remand.
We need not address the voluntariness issue because of our determination of the first issue.
Appellant was convicted of first-degree sexual assault in violation of § 6-2-301(a)(i), W.S.1977. Appellant's arraignment commenced January 10, 1984, and was continued until January 13, 1984, so that the State could amend the information. 1 Appellant pled not guilty on January 13, 1984. On March 14, 1984, appellant changed his plea to not guilty and not guilty by reason of mental deficiency or mental illness.
Appellant was admitted to the State Hospital pursuant to § 7-11-301 et seq., W.S.1977. It was determined by hospital personnel that appellant was "not mentally ill or deficient," and also that he was "not mentally ill or deficient at the time of the alleged criminal action."
Later a plea bargain was agreed upon and on the 13th day of July, 1984, appellant withdrew his plea of not guilty and not guilty by reason of mental deficiency or mental illness and entered a plea of guilty. 2 Appellant waived the presentence investigation report and the court proceeded to impose sentence.
Rule 15(c), Wyoming Rules of Criminal Procedure, provides:
The trial court failed to comply with Rule 15(c) at the change-of-plea hearing; that is, the record of the July 13, 1984, hearing does not contain the advice required to be given according to Rule 15(c) before a defendant's guilty plea is accepted.
The requirements of Rule 15(e), W.R.Cr.P., were not met; that is, the plea agreement was not disclosed on the record nor was it accepted on the record and appellant so advised. 3 If the advice given by the trial court at the January 10, January 13, March 14, and July 13 proceedings were joined, it is possible Rule 15(c), W.R.Cr.P., may have been substantially complied with. The state does not contend, however, that the court complied with Rule 15(c) at the time the guilty plea was accepted or even that the trial court advised appellant of his rights in installments. The state contends, however, that the deficiencies in the advice required by Rules 15(c) and 15(e) do not require reversal. We disagree.
The effect of noncompliance with Rule 15(c) was discussed in Hoggatt v. State, Wyo., 606 P.2d 718, 724-725 (1980):
In Cardenas v. Meacham, Wyo., 545 P.2d 632, 639-640 (1976), we said:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Duffy v. State, 87-160
...on post-conviction relief. Gist v. State, 768 P.2d 1054 (Wyo.1989). See Keller v. State, 723 P.2d 1244 (Wyo.1986); Crawford v. State, 701 P.2d 1150 (Wyo.1985). While we have required strict compliance with the provisions of Rule 15, W.R.Cr.P., we have not added to those requirements. See Ca......
-
Mehring v. State, 92-114
...by counsel that the nature of the charges had been explained violated the rule of strict compliance announced in Crawford v. State, 701 P.2d 1150, 1153 (Wyo.1985). See also Smallwood v. State, 748 P.2d 1141, 1143 At the outset of the change of plea hearing, the trial court informed Mehring ......
-
Stice v. Shillinger
...the question of whether a deviation from the requirements of Rule 15(c) was subject to harmless error analysis. See Crawford v. State, 701 P.2d 1150, 1153 (Wyo.1985) (noting that this was an open question and reserving ruling on it until a proper case was In Stice, the Court was presented w......
-
Rodriguez v. State
...the State has not demonstrated that this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Smallwood, 748 P.2d at 1143; Crawford v. State, 701 P.2d 1150, 1153 (Wyo.1985). Contrary to our decision in Bird, 901 P.2d 1123, where we held that the district court's error was harmless, in this cas......