People v. Peters, 85CA0941
Citation | 738 P.2d 395 |
Decision Date | 22 January 1987 |
Docket Number | No. 85CA0941,85CA0941 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald L. PETERS, Defendant-Appellant. . III |
Court | Court of Appeals of Colorado |
Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., John Daniel Dailey, Timothy E. Nelson, Asst. Attys. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
David F. Vela, Public Defender, Thomas R. Williamson, Deputy Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
Defendant, Ronald L. Peters, appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief. We set aside the order.
Defendant entered a plea of guilty to charges of second degree burglary and first degree arson that arose from separate incidents. In exchange, the prosecution dismissed two other charges of burglary and arson. Defendant was sentenced to two consecutive eight-year terms.
Defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his Crim.P. 35(c) motion to vacate his guilty plea. Relying on ABA, Standards for Criminal Justice, Standard 14-1.4(a)(ii) (2d ed. 1980), which states that a court should not accept a guilty plea without first informing the defendant of the possibility of consecutive sentences, defendant argues that his guilty plea was constitutionally deficient because he was neither informed nor aware of the possibility of consecutive sentencing when he entered his plea. We agree.
The trial court advised defendant:
To comply with due process, an affirmative showing must be made to establish that a guilty plea has been voluntarily and intelligently entered. People v. Randolph, 175 Colo. 454, 488 P.2d 203 (1971). A court is not to accept a plea of guilty without first determining that the defendant understands the possible penalties for the crimes to which he is pleading...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. White
...its holding. Other jurisdictions have reached the same conclusion as that reached by Pennsylvania and Illinois. See People v. Peters, 738 P.2d 395, 395-96 (Colo.Ct.App.1987) (noting previous Colorado Supreme Court decision in which it was held that the ABA Standards relating to guilty pleas......
-
People v. Corral
...the conviction is not valid, and the court must vacate the plea. People v. Cabral, 698 P.2d 234, 236 (Colo.1985); People v. Peters, 738 P.2d 395, 396 (Colo.App. 1987). However, in some circumstances, the appropriate remedy is to remand to allow the defendant to withdraw or affirm his or her......
-
People v. Warren
...4. The Colorado Supreme Court adopted the ABA Standards in People v Randolph, 175 Colo 454; 488 P2d 203 (1971). In People v Peters, 738 P2d 395, 396 (Colo Ct App, 1987), the Colorado Court of Appeals specifically acknowledged that "[i]ncluded in those standards . . . is the requirement that......
-
People v. Phillips, 97CA1650
...was granted. Subsequently, following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied defendant's motions. Relying on People v. Peters, 738 P.2d 395 (Colo.App.1987), defendant, through appointed appellate counsel, now contends that the trial court erred by refusing to find that his guilty ple......