People v. Cushon

¶1We granted certiorari in this case to review the court of appeals’ decision in People v. Cushon, 631 P.2d 1164 (Colo.App.1981), in which the trial court’s judgment denying the defendant’s Crim.P. 35(b) motion for post-conviction relief was reversed. A review of the record convinces us that the trial court was correct in denying the defendant’s 35(b) motion. We, therefore, reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.

¶2Defendant Cushon was charged with second-degree burglary and the felony theft of goods valued in excess of one hundred dollars. Pursuant to a plea bargain, the defendant entered a guilty plea to the charge of felony theft and the burglary charge was dismissed. He was then sentenced to an indeterminate term not to exceed three years at the Colorado State Reformatory. Thereafter, the defendant filed his pro se Crim.P. 35(b) motion alleging that the trial court failed to comply with Crim.P. 11, and that “said guilty plea is illegal and involuntary in that it was accepted without a factual basis.” (Emphasis supplied in original). After hearing, the trial court denied the defendant’s 35(b) motion.

¶3In reversing the trial court’s judgment, the court of appeals held that a factual basis for the guilty plea, as required by Crim.P. 11(b)(6), had not been established at the providency hearing.1 Specifically, the *528court of appeals ruled that the prosecution’s failure “to provide any statement as to the value of the items allegedly stolen” rendered the subsequent acceptance of the guilty plea invalid. We disagree.

¶4We have previously emphasized that satisfaction of Crim.P. 11 requirements does not impose a prescribed ritual or wording before a guilty plea may be accepted. People v. Lambert, 189 Colo. 264, 539 P.2d 1238 (1975); People v. Duran, 183 Colo. 180, 515 P.2d 1117 (1973); People v. Alvarez, 181 Colo. 213, 508 P.2d 1267 (1973).

¶5The record here makes it convincingly clear that before the defendant pled guilty, he had a full and accurate understanding of each of the elements of the charge; that he “did do that with which” he was charged; and that he knew the consequences of a guilty plea. The record also demonstrates that the guilty plea was voluntary beyond question. These are the purposes sought to be achieved by Crim.P. 11, and if such purposes were attained as shown from this record, there is at least that high degree of substantial adherence to the requirement of this rule which dictates that form should not prevail over substance. See People v. Edwards, 186 Colo. 129, 526 P.2d 144 (1974); People v. Crater, 182 Colo. 248, 512 P.2d 623 (1973).

¶6The record in this case reveals a substantial adherence to the requirements of Crim.P. 11 and we therefore conclude that the trial court did not commit error in accepting the defendant’s guilty plea and consequently, its denial of defendant’s 35(b) motion should not be reversed.

¶7A review of this record draws immediate attention to the following points which support the conclusion that the trial court’s compliance with Crim.P. 11 was sufficient.

¶8(1) The information charging the defendant with the crime of felony theft specifically alleged that the stolen items had a value in excess of one hundred dollars;2 (2) During the course of the providency hearing, the trial court in minute detail advised the defendant as to each element of the offense to which he was pleading guilty. In so doing, the court informed the defendant that to secure a conviction at trial, the prosecution would have to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the stolen items had a value in excess of one hundred dollars. When specifically asked by the trial judge if he understood the elements of the offense and the ramifications of his guilty plea, the defendant answered in the affirmative; (3) The trial court informed the defendant that “a plea of guilty is a statement by you that you did that with which you are charged.” The defendant advised the trial court that he knew this, and also, that the plea was his voluntary act. This is tantamount to an acknowledgment of guilt; (4) The trial court prior to accepting the guilty plea questioned both the defendant, and defendant’s attorney as to whether the attorney had discussed this matter with his client and had advised him. The responses indicated that there had been discussions of “considerable length” between them and that the defendant was satisfied with the attorney’s advice. See People v. Gorniak, 197 Colo. 289, 593 P.2d 349 (1979); (5) Nowhere in either his 35(b) motion or in his *529appellate pleadings does the defendant argue that the collective value of the stolen items was less than that required for conviction. See People v. Edwards, supra; People v. Lambert, supra;and (6) After comprehensive advisements and questioning of the defendant, the trial court asked him why he was pleading guilty. The defendant answered that he was doing so to “escape the risk of being convicted of the other charge.” Defendant did not protest his innocence, but rather the record persuasively indicates an acknowledgment by him of guilt particularly to the lesser charge to which he pled guilty. This is not a so-called “Alford plea.” See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), where a defendant does not acknowledge guilt and maintains his innocence, but, nevertheless, pleads guilty to a lesser offense. The strictest compliance with the rules governing a plea of guilty would be required in such a case.

¶9In light of these, and other facts, as shown from the record, we find the court of appeals’ decision, which relied solely on the inadvertent failure of the prosecution to state at the providency hearing the value of the stolen items, to be an unduly strict interpretation of Crim.P. 11, which is unwarranted under the record of this case.

¶10Our conclusion is supported by the rationale in the not dissimilar case of People v. Canino, 181 Colo. 207, 211, 508 P.2d 1273, 1275 (1973), wherein this court stated:

“We have recognized the need for a full providency hearing and have specified the formalities which the court must follow. ... Our concern, however, has always been with reality and not ritual.... What the constitution requires is that the defendant be aware of the elements of the offense and that he voluntarily and understandingly acknowledge his guilt. A formalistic recitation by the trial judge at a providency hearing is not a constitutional requisite. In this case, ... the defendant told the court that the charges were fully explained to him by his counsel. To us, it would be the height of sophistry, under the circumstances of this case, to vacate the defendant’s plea because of the court’s failure to set forth in the record the elements of the crime of theft.”

¶11The other issue raised in the appeal before the court of appeals is without merit.

¶12The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed.