Lamb v. People, No. 23713

Docket NºNo. 23713
Citation484 P.2d 798, 174 Colo. 441
Case DateMay 10, 1971
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

Page 798

484 P.2d 798
174 Colo. 441
James Dale LAMB, Plaintiff in Error,
v.
The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error.
No. 23713.
Supreme Court of Colorado, In Department.
May 10, 1971.

[174 Colo. 442] Edward H. Sherman, Truman E. Coles, Public Defenders, David A. Fogel, Deputy Public Defender, Denver, for plaintiff in error.

Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., Michael T. Haley, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendant in error.

HODGES, Justice.

By writ of error, defendant Lamb alleges the trial court erroneously denied his motion under Crim.P. 35(b) for post conviction relief. We do not agree and therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant's 35(b) motion essentially claims a constitutional violation by the trial court when it permitted him to withdraw his previously entered pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity

Page 799

and to plead guilty to the charge of assault with a deadly weapon without the benefit of counsel under the circumstances [174 Colo. 443] of this case. As we understand it, the theme of the defendant's argument in support of reversal is that his plea of guilty should not be deemed a voluntary act because he was not represented by counsel and because he was 19 years of age at the time, had only a seventh grade education, and had been in a mental institution. The defendant also buttresses this argument with the allegation in his 35(b) motion that he pled guilty 'because of fear and duress when in fact he had a legitimate and meritorious defense of self defense.'

Our review of this record reveals that the trial court complied with Crim.P. 11 prior to accepting the defendant's plea of guilty. McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418. Although the defendant does not contend that the trial court did not adhere to the requirements of Crim.P. 11, he argues that blind adherence to the mandates of Crim.P. 11 is not enough under the circumstances here. The defendant claims that under the circumstances here, the trial court must go beyond the requirements of Crim.P. 11 by additional and careful inquiry of the defendant for the purpose of making absolutely certain that his plea of guilty is, in fact, his voluntary act.

The following facts are required for a full picture of what transpired prior to the defendant's plea of guilty on February 2, 1965. Having been charged with assault with a deadly weapon, the defendant on January 19, 1965 was arraigned before the trial court. At that time, without being represented by counsel, the defendant entered a plea of not guilty and also not guilty by 'reason of insanity at the time, since, and now.' Thereupon, the trial court ordered the defendant to be examined by a psychiatrist who was appointed by the court for this purpose.

Although the psychiatrist's report has not been made a part of the record, the trial court in its findings of fact at the conclusion of the 35(b) hearing, set forth that the psychiatrist had examined the defendant on [174 Colo. 444] three occasions at the jail and that during the third visit, the defendant told the psychiatrist that he wanted to change his plea to guilty as soon as possible; that he was 'trying to get away with the insanity but thought I'd better straighten my life out now.' The report, according to the trial judge's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 practice notes
  • Dunlap v. People, No. 04SA218.
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • May 14, 2007
    ...of determining the weight and credibility to be given to witness 173 P.3d 1062 testimony. Kailey, 807 P.2d at 567; Lamb v. People, 174 Colo. 441, 446, 484 P.2d 798, 800 (1971). Where the evidence in the record supports the findings and holding of the court, the judgment of the court will no......
  • People v. Curtis, Nos. 82SC414
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • April 23, 1984
    ...relief proceeding, the burden is on the defendant to establish his allegations by a preponderance of the evidence. Lamb v. People, 174 Colo. 441, 484 P.2d 798 (1971). However, in general the burden is on the prosecution to show effective waiver of a fundamental right. Barker v. Wingo, 407 U......
  • People v. Pozo, No. 85SC319
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • November 9, 1987
    ...Bresnahan v. People, 175 Colo. 286, 487 P.2d 551 (1971); see People v. McClellan, 183 Colo. 176, 515 P.2d 1127 (1973); Lamb v. People, 174 Colo. 441, 484 P.2d 798 (1971); Normand v. People, 165 Colo. 509, 440 P.2d 282 The issue of ineffective assistance of counsel, as addressed by the major......
  • People v. Naranjo, No. 91SC473
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • October 26, 1992
    ...his claim by a preponderance of the evidence. E.g., People v. McClellan, 183 Colo. 176, 178, 515 P.2d 1127, 1128 (1973); Lamb v. People, 174 Colo. 441, 446, 484 P.2d 798, 800 (1971). Under the Strickland standard, a defendant will establish a violation of his right to testify when he proves......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
26 cases
  • Dunlap v. People, No. 04SA218.
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • May 14, 2007
    ...of determining the weight and credibility to be given to witness 173 P.3d 1062 testimony. Kailey, 807 P.2d at 567; Lamb v. People, 174 Colo. 441, 446, 484 P.2d 798, 800 (1971). Where the evidence in the record supports the findings and holding of the court, the judgment of the court will no......
  • People v. Curtis, Nos. 82SC414
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • April 23, 1984
    ...relief proceeding, the burden is on the defendant to establish his allegations by a preponderance of the evidence. Lamb v. People, 174 Colo. 441, 484 P.2d 798 (1971). However, in general the burden is on the prosecution to show effective waiver of a fundamental right. Barker v. Wingo, 407 U......
  • People v. Pozo, No. 85SC319
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • November 9, 1987
    ...Bresnahan v. People, 175 Colo. 286, 487 P.2d 551 (1971); see People v. McClellan, 183 Colo. 176, 515 P.2d 1127 (1973); Lamb v. People, 174 Colo. 441, 484 P.2d 798 (1971); Normand v. People, 165 Colo. 509, 440 P.2d 282 The issue of ineffective assistance of counsel, as addressed by the major......
  • People v. Naranjo, No. 91SC473
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • October 26, 1992
    ...his claim by a preponderance of the evidence. E.g., People v. McClellan, 183 Colo. 176, 178, 515 P.2d 1127, 1128 (1973); Lamb v. People, 174 Colo. 441, 446, 484 P.2d 798, 800 (1971). Under the Strickland standard, a defendant will establish a violation of his right to testify when he proves......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT