People v. Clark, 25336
| Decision Date | 12 November 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 25336,25336 |
| Citation | 515 P.2d 1242,183 Colo. 201 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernie Ray CLARK, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
John P. Moore, Atty. Gen., John E. Bush, Deputy Atty. Gen., E. Ronald Beeks, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
Colin M. Clark, Charles Ginsberg, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
The defendant, by this appeal, seeks to vacate the sentences which were imposed after a jury found him guilty of rape (C.R.S.1963, 40--2--25(1)(d)) and kidnapping (C.R.S.1963, 42--2--44(2)) and to obtain a new trial. Prior to the imposition of sentence, a comprehensive pre-sentence investigation report was prepared for the use of the trial judge, and the report was made available to defense counsel. The record also discloses that before the defendant was sentenced, he was granted the full right of allocution. Sentences were then imposed of not less than twenty-eight years nor more than thirty years for kidnapping and not less than ninety years nor more than life for rape. The trial judge also ordered that the sentences should run consecutively, thereby causing the minimum sentence to be one hundred eighteen years.
Although the jury convicted the defendant of violent crimes and the pre-sentence report included other crimes of violence, the trial judge improperly forced the defendant to elect whether he plead guilty to a lesser offence in exchange for a relatively short sentence or suffer a life sentence if he went to trial and lost. As a result, the sentences must be vacated and the defendant resentenced by a different judge.
The trial judge's participation in plea negotiations is set forth in affidavits which were filed by defense counsel and by the district attorney. At the time the district attorney and defense counsel appeared before the judge and the threats were made, no plea agreement had been reached. Under those circumstances, it was highly improper for the trial judge to enter into the plea negotiations.
The affidavits, which appear as part of the record, establish that the trial judge advised defense counsel, in the course of the plea negotiations, that the defendant would be given an extremely heavy sentence, or 'put away forever,' if he did not accept the district attorney's offer and went to trial and was found guilty. In entering into the plea bargaining process with the prosecutor and defense counsel, the trial judge used the power of his position in an attempt to force the defendant to plead guilty. His participation in plea bargaining is fundamentally unfair and brings to bear the full force and majesty of the court on a defendant.
Moreover, when the trial judge couples his intervention with threats of a longer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Mendoza
...whether the sentence imposed was based on reason or based on the fulfillment of the previous threat." Id. (citing People v. Clark , 183 Colo. 201, 515 P.2d 1242, 1242–43 (1973) ).¶15 Rule 17.4(a) remained substantively unchanged until 1999, when, after a two-year experimental period, see Ar......
-
State v. D'ANTONIO
...of vindictiveness because sentence proper in light of statutory limit and defendant's prior felony convictions); People v. Clark, 183 Colo. 201, 203, 515 P.2d 1242 (1973) (stating that judicial participation "in plea bargaining is fundamentally unfair and brings to bear the full force and m......
-
People v. Killebrew
...(Footnote omitted.) United States v. Werker, supra, 203. See also State v. Buckalew, 561 P.2d 289 (Alaska, 1977); People v. Clark, 183 Colo. 201, 515 P.2d 1242 (1973). Therefore, judicial participation must be limited in order to minimize the coercive effect of such participation on the def......
-
State v. Jordan
...it is unclear whether the sentence imposed was based on reason or based on the fulfillment of the previous threat. In People v. Clark, 183 Colo. 201, 515 P.2d 1242 (1973), the Colorado Supreme Court said "that the trial judge advised defense counsel, in the course of the plea negotiations, ......
-
Chapter 1 - § 1.8 • PLEA NEGOTIATION
...to participate in plea discussions. Crim. P. 11(f)(4); C.R.S. § 16-7-302(1); Crumb v. People, 230 P.3d 726 (Colo. 2010); People v. Clark, 515 P.2d 1242 (Colo. 1973); Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct, R. 2.6. There are a number of valid reasons for keeping trial courts out of the discussion......