People in Interest of J.F.C., 81CA0800
| Citation | 660 P.2d 7 |
| Decision Date | 09 September 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81CA0800,81CA0800 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Petitioner-Appellee, In the Interest of J.F.C., a Child, Respondent-Appellant. . II |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Colorado |
J.D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Richard F. Hennessey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Mary J. Mullarkey, Sol. Gen., Nathan B. Coats, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for petitioner-appellee.
Allan Lenefsky, Wheat Ridge, for respondent-appellant.
In this juvenile delinquency proceeding, respondent J.F.C. appeals the denial by the juvenile court of his motion to "withdraw his guilty plea" (plea of admission to the allegations of the petition). We affirm.
On June 9, 1980, at the advisement hearing conducted pursuant to C.R.J.P. 3, J.F.C. admitted to committing both counts of the petition, second degree forgery and conspiracy to commit forgery. Prior to his sentencing, respondent filed a motion to withdraw the plea of admission to the charges and after a hearing, the juvenile court denied the motion, which ruling is the subject of this appeal.
Defendant's sole issue on appeal is that his admission to the allegations in the petition made before a commissioner of the juvenile court in Adams County, § 19-1-110, C.R.S.1973 (1981 Cum.Supp.), were not knowingly or intelligently made and that neither he nor his mother understood what occurred at the hearing in which he admitted his guilt. We disagree.
C.R.J.P. 1, C.R.S.1973 (1981 Cum.Supp.) states that "[p]roceedings in delinquency shall be conducted in accordance with the Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure except as otherwise provided by statute or these rules." Thus, the Rules of Criminal Procedure are applicable here. The advisement hearing in a juvenile delinquency proceeding is a critical stage of the proceedings against the juvenile, and, accordingly, the constitutional guarantee of due process is applicable thereto. People v. M.A.W., 651 P.2d 433 (Colo.App.1982). The standards guaranteeing the juvenile's constitutional rights are codified in C.R.J.P. 3.
C.R.J.P. 3 is the substantial equivalent of Crim.P. 11, so that we analogize to it and the cases dealing with a guilty plea withdrawal. See also Crim.P. 32(e) on withdrawal of guilty plea. The most significant difference in the rules is that the juvenile rules specifically state that both the child and his parents will be fully advised by the court and that they understand the applicable constitutional rights.
Therefore, of critical significance to any knowing and intelligent waiver of a constitutional right by a juvenile is the presence of the parent. C.R.J.P. 3. See also People v. McAnally, 192 Colo. 12, 554 P.2d 1100 (1976). The parent is there to assure the juvenile is provided with parental guidance and moral support, as well as some assurance that any waiver of the juvenile's rights is made knowingly and intelligently. See People v. Hayhurst, 194 Colo. 292, 571 P.2d 721 (1977); People in Interest of L.B., 33 Colo.App. 1, 513 P.2d 1069 (1973). See also IJA/ABA, Juvenile Justice Standards Relating to Pretrial Court Proceedings § 6.5 (Commentary). The role of the parent will vary depending upon the age, experience, and ability of the juvenile. See Standards Relating to Pretrial Court Proceedings § 6.1. However, it is not sufficient to have the presence of a parent when that parent is unable to function in the adviser role or if the parent's interests are adverse to that of the child. People in Interest of L.B., supra.
Here, the record demonstrates that the commissioner first complied with C.R.J.P. 3(a) concerning the understanding of the allegations of the petition and of J.F.C.'s constitutional rights. The decision to waive counsel consisted of the following pertinent exchanges between the commissioner, J.F.C., and his mother, Mrs. C.:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People ex rel. A.C.E-D.
...S.Ct. 302, 92 L.Ed. 224 (1948) (same); People in Interest of M.R.J. , 633 P.2d 474, 476-77 (Colo. 1981) (same); People in Interest of J.F.C. , 660 P.2d 7, 9 (Colo. App. 1982)(guilty pleas and waiver of right to trial). But A.C.E-D. does not explain why the factors that warrant special due p......
- Schubert v. People
-
In re Interest of Justin v.
...an admission. See, In re P.L.B., 40 Kan.App.2d 182, 190 P.3d 274 (2008); In re J.E.H., 689 A.2d 528 (D.C.1996); People in Interest of J.F.C., 660 P.2d 7 (Colo.App.1982). But see In Interest of Bradford, 705 A.2d 443 (Pa.Super.1997) (finding adult criminal rules and guidelines inapplicable a......
-
People v. Simpson, No. 00CA0475.
...his or her parents be fully advised by the court and that they understand the applicable constitutional rights. People in Interest of J.F.C., 660 P.2d 7, 8 (Colo.App.1982). Requiring adult presence at an initial appearance is of "critical significance to any knowing and intelligent waiver o......
-
The Nuts and Bolts of Juvenile Delinquency
...Interest of M.R.J., 663 P.2d 474 (Colo. 1981). 41. CRS § 19-2-708(1). 42. See CRS § 19-2-708(2). See also People in the Interest of J.F.C., 660 P.2d 7 (Colo.App. 1982). 43. CRS § 19-2-709. 44. CRS § 19-1-103(2). 45. Id. 46. 387 U.S. 1 (1967). 47. Id. 48. See McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.......