People v. Goldman, 95CA0939
| Decision Date | 11 July 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 95CA0939,95CA0939 |
| Citation | 923 P.2d 374 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Winston GOLDMAN, Defendant-Appellant. . III |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Gale A. Norton, Attorney General, Stephen K. ErkenBrack, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Timothy M. Tymkovich, Solicitor General, Sandra K. Mills, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Law Offices of Douglas S. Joffe, Laja K.M. Thompson, Jason T. Meade, Denver, for Defendant-Appellant.
Opinion by Judge HUME.
Defendant, Michael Winston Goldman, appeals the trial court's order denying his Crim.P. 35(c) motion. We dismiss the appeal.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant was convicted of first degree assault and a corresponding crime of violence count and was sentenced to a twelve-year prison term.
Defendant thereafter filed a pro se Crim.P. 35(c) motion, claiming that his plea had not been knowingly and voluntarily entered because he had received ineffective assistance of plea counsel and an inadequate Crim.P. 11 advisement from the trial court. As pertinent here, defendant maintained that he was under the influence of a "mind altering prescription drug" during his providency hearing and was therefore unable to understand the court's advisement and the consequences of his plea. With respect to the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, defendant contended that counsel "should not have let defendant" enter a plea while under the influence of the medication.
The trial court appointed counsel to represent defendant on the motion. Following an evidentiary hearing, defendant withdrew his claim regarding the propriety of his Crim.P. 11 advisement. Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the trial court found that plea counsel's performance had not been deficient and denied the motion.
On appeal, defendant contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in the Crim.P. 35(c) proceeding. More specifically, he claims counsel was ineffective because he failed to call an expert witness regarding the effects of the medication, if any, on defendant's mental state during the providency hearing and his ability to make a knowing and voluntary plea while on the medication. Defendant did not raise this issue in the trial court. Consequently, the trial court has not had an opportunity to rule on defendant's claim.
Allegations not raised in a Crim.P. 35(c) motion or during the hearing on that motion and thus not ruled on by the trial court are not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Silva
...See, e.g., Jurgevich v. Dist. Court, 907 P.2d 565 (Colo.1995) (no right to free transcript in collateral attack); People v. Goldman, 923 P.2d 374 (Colo.App.1996) (declining to address allegations not raised in the Crim. P. 35(c) motion or hearing, although Crim. P. 52(b) would suggest other......
-
Crosby v. Watkins
...motion, and therefore, we need not consider it on appeal. See People v. Lesney, 855 P.2d 1364 (Colo. 1993); People v. Goldman, 923 P.2d 374 (Colo.App.1996). He first raised the issue in his supplemental appellate brief filed pro se, asserting that this issue was raised during the postconvic......
-
People v. Zuniga
...consider them on appeal. See People v. Lesney, 855 P.2d 1364 (Colo.1993); People v. Boyd, 30 P.3d 819 (Colo.App.2001); People v. Goldman, 923 P.2d 374 (Colo.App.1996). Finally, we reject defendant's claim that his plea was involuntary because the prosecution coerced him into pleading guilty......
-
Demarest v. Price, 95-1535
...circumstance that allows allow the court to consider a second or successive Colo.Crim. P. 35(c) motion. Id. But see People v. Goldman, 923 P.2d 374, 374-75 (Colo.Ct.App.1996) (refusing to follow procedure adopted in Hickey--remanding Rule 35(c) proceeding to the trial court to consider clai......