People v. Rocha, 82SA168
| Decision Date | 13 September 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 82SA168,82SA168 |
| Citation | 650 P.2d 569 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David W. ROCHA, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Paul Q. Beacom, Dist. Atty., Steven Bernard, Chief Trial Deputy Dist. Atty., Brighton, for plaintiff-appellant.
Daniel, McCain & Brown, T. William Wallace, Brighton, for defendant-appellee.
This is an interlocutory appeal by the prosecution pursuant to C.A.R. 4.1 from a district court ruling that granted the defendant's motion to suppress. We affirm the ruling of the district court.
The defendant, David Rocha, was charged with driving after judgment prohibited. Section 42-2-206, C.R.S.1973 (habitual traffic offender). Thereafter, through counsel, he moved to suppress the evidence offered to support the Colorado Department of Revenue Motor Vehicle Division's (Motor Vehicle Division) finding that the defendant had been convicted of ten or more separate and distinct offenses involving moving violations which provide for an assessment of four or more points each within any five-year period or portion thereof.
The findings of the Motor Vehicle Division caused the defendant to be a habitual traffic offender. Specifically, the defendant sought to suppress his convictions in the Brighton, Colorado Municipal Court arising from pleas of guilty which he entered to eight traffic offenses and to guilty pleas entered on four Colorado State Patrol penalty assessment offenses. He asserted that these convictions were unconstitutional because he was not advised of his constitutional rights before he pled guilty and paid the fines imposed, and because he was not represented by counsel in the cases before the Brighton, Colorado Municipal Court. He also contended that he did not knowingly or voluntarily and specifically waive his right to counsel in the cases before the Brighton Municipal Court, and that the convictions could not be used to support the habitual traffic offender charge.
The trial court took evidence relating to the traffic offenses which supported the habitual traffic offender charge, heard the defendant's testimony relating to the factual issue of advisement of the right to counsel, and concluded and found, based on People v. Hampton, Colo., 619 P.2d 48 (1980), that the defendant's motion to suppress should be granted. All of the traffic offenses which supported the habitual traffic offender charge arose out of pleas of guilty. The prosecution offered no evidence to refute the defense evidence which consisted of the defendant's testimony,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Wilson
...63 L.Ed.2d 198 (1980). However, the majority of jurisdictions hold that such rationale is applicable to driving offenses. People v. Rocha, 650 P.2d 569 (Colo.1982); State v. Medenwaldt, 341 N.W.2d 885 (Minn.App.1984). It has been said, "All instances where an enhancement follows a prior off......
-
Addvensky v. Gunnell
...See Schindler v. Clerk of Circuit Court, 551 F.Supp. 561 (W.D.Wis.1982) (citing concurring opinion of Marshall, J.); People v. Rocha, 650 P.2d 569, 570 (Colo.1982); Hollingsworth v. Alabama, 410 So.2d 133, 134 (Crim.App.Ala.1981). But see United States v. Robles-Sandoval, 637 F.2d 692, 693 ......
-
People v. Rocha, 83SA5
...evidence. See People v. Lindsey, 660 P.2d 502 (Colo.1983). This court approved the trial court's evidentiary ruling in People v. Rocha, 650 P.2d 569 (Colo.1982). In November 1982, subsequent to the issuance of the mandate in People v. Rocha, supra, the People filed a motion requesting the t......
-
State v. Cooper, 83-137
...and our own view of the importance of counsel preclude an enhanced conviction as well as a sentence of imprisonment. People v. Rocha, Colo., 650 P.2d 569, 570 (1982) (prior uncounseled traffic offenses cannot support a charge of habitual traffic offender; motion to suppress evidence of prio......