People v. Edwards, 25875
| Decision Date | 09 September 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 25875,25875 |
| Citation | 186 Colo. 129,526 P.2d 144 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Arthur EDWARDS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
John P. Moore, Atty. Gen., John E. Bush, Deputy Atty. Gen., Donna A. Maranchik, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
Rollie R. Rogers, Colo. State Public Defender, James F. Dumas, Jr., Chief Deputy State Public Defender, T. Michael Dutton, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
Defendant-Appellant, John Arthur Edwards, was charged with aggravated robbery, assault with a deadly weapon and assault to murder. He entered a plea of guilty to the charge of aggravated robbery, and the remaining charges were dismissed. Edwards was then sentenced to the Colorado State Penitentiary for a term of not less than thirty nor more than fifty years. Some five years later he moved to vacate the sentence under Crim.P. 35(b), challenging the validity of his guilty plea. He asserted that the trial court failed to comply with the provisions of Crim.P. 11 in that he was never asked if he had an understanding of the nature of the charge of aggravated robbery.
The trial court refused to vacate the plea, and Edwards now appeals that judgment. We affirm the trial court.
The evidence indicates that at the providency hearing the defendant was represented by counsel and answered the questions asked by the trial judge which explored the voluntariness of the guilty plea. Further, the trial judge stated '. . . so there won't be any misunderstanding . . .' and then read the information to the defendant. The information included a clear description of the elements of aggravated robbery, couched in language easily understandable to a person of average intelligence. We point out here that the defendant does not allege that he did not Understand the elements of aggravated robbery, but only that the judge never Asked him if he understood the elements of the crime.
The guilty plea in this case was entered two years before Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969) and Boykin is not applied retroactively. Ward v. People, 172 Colo. 244, 472 P.2d 673 (1970). As we have previously indicated, satisfaction of Crim.P. 11 does not require that a 'prescribed ritual or wording to be employed,' Ward, supra, 'bur rather the substance of the circumstances surrounding the plea should prevail over form.' People...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Marquez
...intelligence. People v. Leonard, 673 P.2d 37, 39 (Colo.1983); People v. Muniz, 667 P.2d 1377, 1382 (Colo.1983).In People v. Edwards, 186 Colo. 129, 526 P.2d 144 (1974), we held that a reading of the charge is sufficient explanation of the substantive crime where the defendant pleads guilty ......
-
Lacy v. People
...by persons of ordinary intelligence include aggravated robbery, Wright v. People, 690 P.2d 1257 (Colo.1984); People v. Edwards, 186 Colo. 129, 526 P.2d 144 (1974), and second degree murder, People v. Gorniak, 197 Colo. 289, 593 P.2d 349 Crimes of greater complexity require a greater showing......
-
Wilson v. People
...disclosed that the defendant knew and understood the general nature and critical elements of the offense. See, 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. Co......
-
Watkins v. People, 81SC82
...the plea indicates that it was voluntarily made with a clear understanding of the elements and nature of the charge. People v. Edwards, 186 Colo. 129, 526 P.2d 144 (1974). In People v. Pauldino, 187 Colo. 61, 64, 528 P.2d 384, 386, decided in 1974, we noted that the trial "did not specifica......