Meier v. People
| Decision Date | 26 March 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 17635,17635 |
| Citation | 296 P.2d 232,133 Colo. 338 |
| Parties | Jacquelyn E. MEIER, Plaintiff in Error, v. PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Rupert M. Ryan, Boulder, Philip Hornbein, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Norman H. Comstock, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
An information was filed in the district court of Boulder county, in the first count of which it was charged that plaintiff in error, to whom we will hereinafter refer as defendant, by driving an automobile in a reckless, negligent and careless manner while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, unlawfully and feloniously caused the death of one Henry Sinclair. In the second count defendant was accused of the crime of involuntary manslaughter.
Defendant upon arraignment was represented by counsel and entered a plea of not guilty to each count, and the cause was thereupon set for trial. When the trial date arrived defendant, again represented by counsel, asked leave to withdraw the pleas of not guilty theretofore entered and was permitted to enter a plea of nolo contendere to the charge of manslaughter. The district attorney asked leave to withdraw the first count of the information. The record discloses with particularity all that was said and done when the original plea of not guilty was withdrawn, and we quote therefrom in this connection as follows:
'Mr. Hornbein: If it please Your Honor, at this time with leave of court we ask permission to withdraw the plea of not guilty to the Second Count of the Indictment, namely, the charge of Involuntary Manslaughter and ask permission to enter instead of plea of nolo contendere.
'Mr. Dolan: If it please the court, the People wish to withdraw the First Count, which is Killing while Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor and let the Second Count stand.
'The Court: Let's see if I understand this correctly. You, the defendant, want permission to withdraw the plea of not guilty to the Second Count of Involuntary Manslaughter and enter a plea of nolo contendere?
'Mr. Hornbein: Yes sir.
'The Court: And securing permission then to dismiss the First Count?
'Mr. Dolan: Yes, Your Honor.
'The Court: All right then, that will be the order. Perhaps we had better have a re-arraignment on the Second Count so that we can have an understanding here of what it is.
(Whereupon, the defendant was duly arraigned)
'The Court: Now, Jacquelyn Meier, so that there won't be any misunderstanding here, you understand that by a plea of nolo contendere for the purposes of this case it is the same as a plea of guilty and could subject you to as much as a year in jail the same as if you had entered a plea of guilty?
'Defendant: Yes.
'The Court: That has been explained to you by your attorney?
'Defendant: Yes.
'The Court: And so for the purposes of this case today, it is equivalent of a plea of guilty?
'Defendant: Yes.
'The Court: And you Mr. Hornbein----
'Mr. Hornbein: I have explained to the defendant Your Honor, that a plea of nolo contendere, by so entering it, the defendant does not admit her guilt, but nevertheless, she states that she does not contest with the People of the State of Colorado on the issue.
'The Court: And that the court does have the power----
'Mr. Hornbein: That is understood.
'The Court: --to sentence the same as if it were a plea of guilty?
'Mr. Hornbein: That is understood Your Honor.
'The Court: Very well, the plea of nolo contendere will be received.'
Following acceptance of the plea of nolo contendere the court took evidence concerning the circumstances under which Henry Sinclair was killed. Suffice it to say the evidence disclosed that on October 31, 1954, about 1:00 o'clock a. m., defendant was driving an automobile west on state highway 7 going in the direction of the city of Boulder; that two passengers were riding with her in the car; that she ran into the rear of a 'wrecker' truck which was travelling at 35 miles per hour in the same direction on the highway; that the car she was driving was demolished; that the passenger Sinclair was killed; and that defendant and the other passenger were injured. Defendant testified that she drank a beer early in the evening and between 10:00 p. m. and midnight had 'two whiskey sours,' but that they had no effect on her. She said that she was driving 'very cautiously'; that she was going between 55 and 60 miles per hour; that she drove across a bridge; that She had no driver's license. A courtesy patrolman testified that at the hospital she told him...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Darlington
...she may be punished just as if she had entered a plea of guilty. See Alford, 400 U.S. at 36 n. 8, 91 S.Ct. 160; Meier v. People, 133 Colo. 338, 340, 296 P.2d 232, 233 (1956); Young, 53 Colo. at 253, 125 P. at 118. Therefore, there is no distinction between a plea of nolo contendere and a pl......
-
People v. Canino, 25221
...precedent. There is no difference between a plea of nolo contendere and a plea of guilty for sentencing purposes. In Meier v. People, 133 Colo. 338, 296 P.2d 232 (1956), we held that a trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant the defendant permission to withdraw his ple......
-
Logan v. People for Use of Alamosa County, 18211
...an applicant should be granted probation involves the exercise of a nice discretion on the part of the trial judge. Meier v. People, 133 Colo. 338, 296 P.2d 232. In the exercise of this discretion he necessarily considers three facets of the problem confronting him: the community, the offen......
-
Coffey v. County Court of Jefferson County, 25352
...order of a trial court granting or denying probation is no part of the judgment to which (appeal) may be directed.' Meier v. People, 133 Colo. 338, 296 P.2d 232 (1956). We note, however, that in the instant case we are concerned only with a trial court's refusal to consider the Respondent, ......