Maes v. People, 22721
| Decision Date | 15 January 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 22721,22721 |
| Citation | 164 Colo. 481,435 P.2d 893 |
| Parties | Eddie S. MAES, Plaintiff in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Edward H. Sherman, Public Defender in and for City and County of Denver, Truman E. Coles, Asst. Public Defender, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., George E. DeRoos, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendant in error.
Plaintiff in error, to whom we will refer by name, petitioned the trial court in proceedings brought under Colo.R.Crim.P. 35(b) to set aside a plea of guilty previously entered by him; to allow him to tender a not guilty plea; and to grant him a jury trial. This writ of error is directed to the order of the trial court which denied his petition.
Maes grounded his request upon assertions that his guilty plea was involuntary and coerced. He alleged it was obtained on promises made in a 'deal' between the district attorney and his appointed counsel.
The trial court granted Maes a full evidentiary hearing. Thus the questions presented for our determination are two-pronged, namely, whether the court abused its discretion in refusing to set aside the guilty plea, and whether the evidence supports the determination by the court.
In his request for permission to withdraw his plea of guilty and to have a jury trial on a new plea of not guilty, Maes did not assert in his petition that he was innocent, or that he had a meritorious defense to the charge, or that he did not understand the nature of the charge. One or more of such assertions is a prerequisite in a petition to withdraw a plea of guilty. Lucero v. People, Colo., 434 P.2d 128. The record shows, and Maes admits, that he knew the legal limits of the sentence which could be imposed against him, to wit: not less than two nor more than fifteen years. The Court, before accepting the plea, inquired whether Maes had been promised anything, threatened or coerced. It received a negative answer.
Plea bargaining per se does not invalidate a guilty plea. Smith v. People Colo., 428 P.2d 69. The record does show that there was some plea bargaining. Maes' version was that he was promised that his $25,000 bond would be reduced to $2500 and that a pending charge of larceny against him would be dismissed. Maes' attorney countered this by testifying that he told Maes he would make application to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dabbs v. People, 24431
...old plea bargaining, as it was once known, has now been approved. Brewer v. People, 168 Colo. 505, 452 P.2d 370 (1969); Maes v. People, 164 Colo. 481, 435 P.2d 893 (1968); Lucero v. People, 164 Colo. 247, 434 P.2d 128 (1967); Smith v. People, 162 Colo. 558, 428 P.2d 69 (1967). American Bar ......
-
Brewer v. People, 23017
...in Colorado is no longer open to question. Smith v. People, 162 Colo. 558, 428 P.2d 69; Lucero v. People, Colo., 434 P.2d 128; Maes v. People, Colo., 435 P.2d 893. The court, in reviewing the evidence available to the district attorney to support a rape charge against defendant, found that ......
-
Maes v. Patterson, 9995.
...evidentiary hearing, and was denied relief. On appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed. Maes v. People, 435 P.2d 893. At the time appellant's present action was dismissed the federal district court had before it only the petition for a writ. Noting......