Crawford v. State, No. 84-199
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming |
Writing for the Court | Before THOMAS; BROWN |
Citation | 701 P.2d 1150 |
Docket Number | No. 84-199 |
Decision Date | 25 June 1985 |
Parties | Floyd CRAWFORD, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff). |
Page 1150
v.
The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).
Page 1151
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.
BROWN, Justice.
Appellant Floyd Crawford appeals his conviction, which was based on a plea of guilty, and alleges error as follows:
"1. Did the Trial Court err in change of plea and sentencing hearing because it did not comply with W.R.Cr.P. 15 which requires the guilty plea be set aside?
"2. Did the Trial Court correctly determine that Appellant's guilty plea which it accepted was voluntarily given?"
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
Page 1152
Appellant waived the presentence investigation report and the court proceeded to impose sentence.Rule 15(c), Wyoming Rules of Criminal Procedure, provides:
"(c) Advice to defendant.--Before accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the court must address the defendant personally in open court and inform him of, and determine that he understands, the following:
"(1) The nature of the charge to which the plea is offered, the mandatory minimum penalty provided by law, if any, and the maximum possible penalty provided by law; and
"(2) If the defendant is not represented by an attorney, that he has the right to be represented by an attorney at every stage of the proceeding against him and, if necessary, one will be appointed to represent him; and
"(3) That he has the right to plead not guilty or to persist in that plea if it has already been made, and that he has the right to be tried by a jury and at that trial has the right to the assistance of counsel, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against him, and the right not to be compelled to incriminate himself; and
"(4) That if he pleads guilty or nolo contendere there will not be a further trial of any kind, so that by pleading guilty or nolo contendere he waives the right to a trial; and
"(5) That if he pleads guilty or nolo contendere, the court may ask him questions about the offense to which he has pleaded, and if he answers these questions under oath, on the record, and in the presence of counsel, his answers...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Duffy v. State, No. 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, No. 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, No. 92-CV-0157-B.
...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, No. 95-129
...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). Page 176 Contrary to our decision in Bird, 901 P.2d 1123, where we held that the district court's error was harmless, in thi......
-
Duffy v. State, No. 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, No. 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, No. 92-CV-0157-B.
...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, No. 95-129
...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). Page 176 Contrary to our decision in Bird, 901 P.2d 1123, where we held that the district court's error was harmless, in thi......