People v. Phillips, 97CA1650
| Decision Date | 03 September 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 97CA1650,97CA1650 |
| Citation | 964 P.2d 628 |
| Parties | 98 CJ C.A.R. 4622 The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gordon J. PHILLIPS, Defendant-Appellant. . I |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Gale A. Norton, Attorney General, Martha Phillips Allbright, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Richard A. Westfall, Solicitor General, Julia A. Thomas, Special Assistant Attorney General, Denver, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Chambers, Dansky and Hansen, P.C., Nathan D. Chambers, Denver, for Defendant-Appellant.
Opinion by Judge JONES.
Defendant, Gordon Jerome Phillips, appeals from the trial court's order denying his Crim. P. 35(c) motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm.
In April 1993, as a result of a plea bargain, defendant pled guilty to first degree criminal trespass and driving under the influence (DUI). In exchange for his guilty pleas, additional charges were dismissed. Thereafter, defendant failed to appear for sentencing.
While at large, defendant committed a bank robbery, for which, after apprehension, he was convicted and sentenced to 37 months in federal prison. In April 1994, following his federal sentencing, defendant appeared in the trial court here for sentencing on his previously entered guilty pleas. The trial court sentenced defendant to the Department of Corrections for concurrent terms of five years for criminal trespass and one year for DUI, and ordered that the sentences be served consecutively to his federal sentence. Defendant's sentence was affirmed on appeal. People v. Phillips, (Colo.App. No. 94CA0730, August 24, 1995) (not selected for official publication).
In December 1995 and May 1997, defendant, filed Crim. P. 35(c) motions, alleging, as pertinent here, that his guilty pleas were involuntary. Counsel was appointed and represented defendant until defendant petitioned the court to allow him to proceed pro se, which petition 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 pleas were involuntary because he had not been informed that he could receive a consecutive sentence. That reliance is misplaced.
The defendant in Peters entered simultaneous guilty pleas to charges of burglary and arson that arose from separate incidents. He was sentenced to two consecutive eight-year terms. However, a division of this court determined that, because defendant was neither informed nor aware of the possibility of consecutive sentencing when he entered his pleas and, thus, was unaware of the maximum possible sentence, the guilty pleas had not been voluntarily entered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chapter 2 - § 2.4 • REQUIREMENTS OF A VALID GUILTY PLEA
...be advised that any sentence may be consecutive to other sentences. People v. Peters, 738 P.2d 395 (Colo. App. 1987); People v. Phillips, 964 P.2d 628 (Colo. App. 1998) (advisement as to possibility of consecutive sentences not always required). This advisement does not need to include all ......
-
Collateral Effects of a Criminal Conviction in Colorado - June 2006 - Criminal Law
...14. See notes 8 and 9, supra. 15. LaFave, Israel, and King, Criminal Procedure 2d § 21.4(d) (West 1999). 16. See People v. Phillips, 964 P.2d 628 (Colo.App.1998) (requirement that defendant be advised of the maximum possible sentence to which the pleas will subject him or her does not also ......