State v. Mindrup
| Decision Date | 31 January 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-507,85-507 |
| Parties | STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. Patricia A. MINDRUP, Appellant. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Pleas: Constitutional Law. A written petition to enter a plea of guilty which itemizes a defendant's constitutional rights and the range of penalties for the offense charged does not in and of itself establish that a defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently pled guilty.
2. Pleas: Right to Counsel: Appeal and Error. Failure to inform a defendant of the right to counsel does not constitute error when the defendant has had the benefit of counsel before the court.
3. Pleas: Waiver: Appeal and Error. A defendant may not waive the reading of a document which would have advised him or her of the nature of the offense and later complain that the plea of guilty was entered in ignorance of the nature of the offense.
4. Pleas. It does not matter how a defendant comes to understand the possible penalty for an offense, so long as he or she was aware of it at the time of the plea.
5. Pleas. The use of a written petition to plead guilty is discouraged.
James C. Stecker, Columbus, for appellant.
Robert M. Spire, Atty. Gen., and Jill Gradwohl, Lincoln, for appellee.
Defendant, Patricia A. Mindrup, pled guilty in the county court to third offense driving while under the influence of alcohol. Her driver's license was thereupon suspended for life; in addition, she was ordered incarcerated in the county jail for a period of 3 months, to pay a $500 fine, and to pay the court costs. The district court affirmed. In this court defendant assigns as error the district court's finding that her county court plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made. We affirm.
Upon the advice of her attorney, Mindrup read, executed, and filed a document entitled "Petition to Enter Plea of Guilty," which Mindrup's attorney prepared and persuaded the county court to accept. While the plea petition recites that Mindrup understood the "nature of the charges brought against" her, nowhere does the document itemize the elements of the offense. The document details all the constitutional rights Mindrup waived by her plea. It recited as well that she knew "the maximum possible sentence is 6 months imprisonment and/or a fine of $500.00." Under the foregoing language Mindrup wrote: "I can also louse [sic] my Drivers License for life." The county judge also inquired of Mindrup whether she understood that by pleading guilty she waived certain constitutional rights, and listed them, save and except the right to counsel. The following exchange took place with respect to the penalties:
Mindrup then informed the county court that she was not under any threat, nor under the influence of alcohol or drugs. After determining that a factual basis existed for the plea, the county court found that Mindrup was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entering her plea and accepted it.
Mindrup contends that her plea was in fact not given knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently because the county judge failed to engage her in a dialogue sufficient to enable him to determine that she knew her constitutional rights and waived them, nor that she knew and understood the charges against her and the penalties associated therewith. She argues that the plea petition is not sufficient in and of itself to establish the voluntariness of her plea.
The defendant in State v. Predmore, 220 Neb. 336, 370 N.W.2d 99 (1985), challenged the voluntariness of his plea of guilty to a charge of breaking and entering, notwithstanding the fact that he had executed a plea petition similar to the one in the present case. He had also been presented and heard the trial judge's recitation of the applicable constitutional rights to another defendant in a different case who had been arraigned immediately before him, and told the judge, upon inquiry, that a similar recitation could be "skipped." In addition, the trial judge explained the elements of the crime to Predmore and had the county attorney read the statutory provisions regarding the penalty therefor. The court observed that a written petition to enter a plea of guilty does not satisfy the requirement that there be a record which shows that the judge personally examined the defendant and determined that the latter knew his or her rights and the consequences of a guilty plea. Nonetheless, Predmore's conviction was affirmed because he had heard the dialogue between the judge and another defendant and consequently suffered no prejudice to any substantial right.
Predmore teaches that a written petition to plead guilty which itemizes a defendant's constitutional rights is not in and of itself sufficient to establish the voluntariness of the plea. Here, however, there was a dialogue between the county judge and Mindrup concerning her constitutional rights except as to her right to be represented by counsel wer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Watkins
...that his counsel's representation has been satisfactory would be the epitome of slavish technicality." Relying upon Neal, we held in State v. Mindrup7 that a court's failure to inform a represented defendant of her right to counsel did not invalidate a guilty plea, regardless of whether the......
-
State v. Dixon, 85-475
...constitutional rights is not in and of itself sufficient to establish the voluntariness of the plea." State v. Mindrup, 221 Neb. 773, 776, 380 N.W.2d 637, 638 (1986). In this case, however, the dialogue between the court and defendant fully explained the written The plea bargain and the pet......
-
State v. Medina-Liborio
...chose by reading language into the statute which the Legislature could have included but did not. Alternatively, the State cites State v. Mindrup12 in support of its argument that failure to advise a defendant of certain rights may be excused by a showing that the defendant was aware of suc......
-
State v. Blue, 85-736
...ensure that he knows and understands his rights and is making a voluntary and intelligent waiver of them. See, also, State v. Mindrup, 221 Neb. 773, 380 N.W.2d 637 (1986). The issue here is whether the lack of a verbatim record requires that the judgment be reversed. In State v. Ziemba, 216......
-
Nebraska Plea-based Convictions Practice: a Primer and Commentary
...the defendant). 353. 220 Neb. 336, 370 N.W.2d 99 (1985). 354. See id. at 340, 370 N.W.2d at 101. 355. See id. 356. See State v. Mindrup, 221 Neb. 773, 777, 380 N.W.2d 637, 639 (1986); see alsoState v. Cooper, 196 Neb. 728, 246 N.W.2d 65 (1976)(recommending strict adherence to the personal a......