People v. Cumby, 24832
| Decision Date | 27 March 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 24832,24832 |
| Citation | 495 P.2d 223,178 Colo. 31 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fletcher B. CUMBY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., Eugene C. Cavaliere, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
Vincent Cristiano, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
Fletcher B. Cumby, the defendant, pled guilty to first-degree murder on October 27, 1969, and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Mr. Cumby now seeks to vacate that plea and reinstate his 'not guilty' plea on grounds that his 'guilty' plea was not voluntarily and understandingly entered and on the further ground that the court which took his plea failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Crim.P. 11(c). The Attorney General has confessed error and we agree.
The transcript of the arrignment at which Mr. Cumby entered his plea shows that the trial court inquired as to the voluntariness of the plea, explained the right to jury trial, informed the defendant of possible life imprisonment or death sentence, and ascertained that no promises had been made to him. However, the court did not properly explain the meaning of the charge and the full implication of the guilty plea. Crim.P. 11(c) provides:
'(1) That the defendant understands the charge against him;
'(2) That the plea is voluntary on defendant's part and is not the result of undue influence or coercion on the part of anyone;
'(3) That he understands the right to trial by jury;
'(4) That he understands the possible penalty or penalties and the possible places of incarceration;
'(5) And that the defendant understands that the court will not be bound by any representations made to the defendant by anyone concerning the penalty to be imposed or the granting or the denial of probation.'
In the instant case the explanation of the charge was limited to the wording of the information: 'that . . . Fletcher B. Cumby did feloniously, willfully, and of his premeditated malice aforethought, kill and murder one Dorothy May Sanders. . . .' This court has consistently held that prior to the acceptance of a guilty plea the trial court must be assured that the defendant is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lacy v. People
...the critical elements " 'in terms which are understandable to the defendant.' " Watkins, 655 P.2d at 837 (quoting People v. Cumby, 178 Colo. 31, 33, 495 P.2d 223, 224 (1972)). Our cases have recognized that the degree of explanation that a court should provide depends on the nature and comp......
-
State v. Creech
...(1981); Gonzales v. State, 96 Nev. 562, 613 P.2d 410, 411 (1980); Britain v. State, 497 P.2d 543, 545 (Wyo.1972); People v. Cumby, 178 Colo. 31, 495 P.2d 223, 224-25 (1972); State v. Byrd, 203 Kan. 45, 453 P.2d 22, 29 (1969). When Creech changed his plea to guilty, Judge Newhouse made inqui......
-
Wilson v. People
...e.g., People v. Edwards, 186 Colo. 129, 526 P.2d 144 (1974); People v. Sanders, 185 Colo. 356, 524 P.2d 299 (1974); People v. Cumby, 178 Colo. 31, 495 P.2d 223 (1972); People v. Colosacco, 177 Colo. 219, 493 P.2d 650 (1972). In rejecting post-conviction challenges to the content of an infor......
-
Watkins v. People, 81SC82
...requirement, the court should explain the critical elements "in terms which are understandable to the defendant." People v. Cumby, 178 Colo. 31, 33, 495 P.2d 223, 224 (1972); see also, e.g., People v. Riney, 176 Colo. 221, 489 P.2d 1304 (1971) ("such an explanation and a determination by th......