People v. Pauldino, 25633
| Decision Date | 25 November 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 25633,25633 |
| Citation | 528 P.2d 384,187 Colo. 61 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael E. PAULDINO, 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.
Natalie S. Ellwood, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
Defendant Pauldino, after extensive plea bargaining and after four days into a trial before a jury, asked the court to terminate the trial and entered a plea of guilty to conspiracy to commit burglary. He was sentenced to from 6 to 7 years in the state penitentiary.
Defendant seeks review of his sentence and appeals a ruling of the court denying a motion to vacate his guilty plea. We affirm.
As to the sentence, defendant requests we remand the cause to the trial court for reconsideration or reduce the sentence as being excessive. He points to lower minimum sentences given co-defendants and also to the fact that the court assigned no reason for imposition of the sentence.
We find no basis for ordering or remanding for a different sentence. There is no authority cited and none of which we are aware that requires the court to assign his reasons for imposing a sentence. The matter of punishment for each of co-defendants is discretionary with the trial court within the statutory limits based on degree of involvement, previous record and rehabilitative needs of each. We have no record before us concerning the other defendants. The presentence report on this defendant shows one previous state felony conviction and two convictions on federal charges, for one of which he was in Federal penitentiary at Leavenworth at the time of the sentence. In addition there was a record of at least eight convictions for which he was fined or imprisoned in various jails. The sentence which could have been as high as 9 to 10 years in the state penitentiary does not shock the conscience of the court. People v. Lichtenwalter, Colo., 520 P.2d 583 (1974).
As grounds for setting aside his guilty plea, defendant claims he was not made aware of the nature of the charge by the court. We disagree.
It is true the trial court did not specifically explain in detail the elements of the crime of burglary on which defendant admitted the conspiracy count. Nevertheless, the information was read to him in which the count charges he and other defendants did 'wilfully break and enter, and without force enter, the building * * * with intent then and there to commit the crime of theft.' No more full explanation of the substantive crime could be given than the charge itself and defendant answered 'yes' to the court's question whether he understood the charge to which he was pleading. People v. Edwards, Colo., 526 P.2d 144 (1974).
Defendant's claim to have been induced to enter the plea by promises of leniency was not supported by evidence at the hearing. When he tendered the plea, he told the court he was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Pearson
...to avoid manifest injustice, the error must be clearly evident and plainly prejudicial to the rights of the accused. People v. Pauldino, Colo., 528 P.2d 384 (1974); Land v. People, 171 Colo. 114, 465 P.2d 124 (1970). In this case, defense counsel concedes the probative value of many of the ......
-
Wilson v. People
...by the court may satisfy the requirements of Crim.P. 11. People v. Gorniak, 197 Colo. 289, 593 P.2d 349 (1979); People v. Pauldino, 187 Colo. 61, 528 P.2d 384 (1974); Edwards, 186 Colo. 129, 526 P.2d At the defendant's 1973 providency hearing, the information read to him alleged expressly t......
-
People v. Hinchman
...the trial court may exercise its discretion in sentencing the defendant only within the statutory limits. People v. Pauldino, 187 Colo. 61, 528 P.2d 384 (1974); People v. Jenkins, 180 Colo. 35, 501 P.2d 742 (1972); People v. Jones, 176 Colo. 61, 489 P.2d 596 (1971). The Supreme Court has of......
-
Watkins v. People, 81SC82
...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 specifically explain in detail the elements of the crime of burglary o......