Young v. People

• Citation: 125 P. 117,53 Colo. 251
• Parties: YOUNG v. PEOPLE.
• Decision Date: 01 July 1912
• Court: Supreme Court of Colorado

125 P. 117

53 Colo. 251

YOUNG v. PEOPLE.

Supreme Court of Colorado

July 1, 1912

Error to District Court, Costilla County; Charles C. Holbrook Judge.

Charles J. Young was convicted of selling liquor without a license and he brings error. Affirmed.

E. H Ellithorp, of San Luis, and E. C. Holt and J. W. Davidson both of Pueblo, for plaintiff in error.

Benjamin Griffith, Atty. Gen., and Theodore M. Stuart, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the People.

GARRIGUES, J.

1. April 4, 1910, three informations were filed in the district court of Costilla county against plaintiff in error, being cases numbered 130, 131, and 132 upon the docket of that court, charging him with selling liquor without a license. April 5 1910, he pleaded guilty in No. 132, and nolo contendere in Nos. 130 and 131, and the court entered an order in No. 131, which, after reciting the withdrawal of the plea of not guilty, and the tender of the plea of nolo contendere, which was accepted, is as follows: 'And said plea is accordingly now filed, and, the consequences and effects thereof being by the court here fully explained to him, he still persists therein. Thereupon it is ordered by the court that this cause be and the same is retired from the dockets of this court, upon the payment of all costs herein, with leave to the people to have an alias capias for the arrest of the said defendant, C.J. Young, at any time, and to reinstate this cause for further proceedings.' July 12, 1910, on motion of the district attorney, the court entered an order reinstating the case, and, after examining witnesses as to the aggravation and mitigation of the offense, July 13, 1910, sentenced the defendant to pay a fine of $200 and the costs on his plea of nolo contendere, and he brings the case here for review on error.

2. The only assignment we think it necessary to consider is the order entered April 5th, when the court accepted the plea of nolo contendere. It is claimed it has the effect of an indefinite postponement of sentence, and that the sentence passed July 13th is void on this account, under the rule announced by this court in Grundel v. People, 33 Colo. 191, 79 P. 1022, 108 Am.St.Rep. 75. In 12 Cyc. p. 354, it is said: 'A plea of nolo contendere, which is still allowed in some jurisdictions, is an implied confession of the crime charged, and, as regards the case in which it is entered, is equivalent to a plea of guilty, except that it gives the accused the advantage of not being estopped to deny his guilt in a civil action based upon the same facts as he would be upon a plea of guilty. If accepted by the court, sentence is imposed as upon a plea of guilty.'

It is a common-law plea, and under section 1982, Revised Statutes of 1908, is allowable in this state. Though a plea of guilty still we know that, in actual practice in this state, it is generally entered either with the express or tacit understanding of the district attorney that the court may enter an order dismissing the defendant out of court upon the payment of...