People v. Arnold

Supreme Court of Colorado

People v. Arnold

544 P.2d 968, 190 Colo. 193, 1976 Colo. LEXIS 767

CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

DecidedJanuary 19, 1976

Docket26409

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 544 P.2d 968 (People v. Arnold) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Arnold, 544 P.2d 968, 190 Colo. 193, 1976 Colo. LEXIS 767 (Colo. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

MR. JUSTICE ERICKSON.

This Crim. P. 35(b) appeal is without merit. Again, a providency hearing is in issue.

The defendant, Clarence Arnold, entered a plea of guilty on December 12, 1960, to a charge of simple robbery. C.R.S. 1953, 40-5-1. He was represented by counsel and a full probation report was made. Thereafter, the defendant was sentenced to the penitentiary and was released. Since that time, he has been convicted of at least three other felonies and now seeks to change his plea or to expunge the conviction which occurred nearly fifteen years ago. He contends that the requirements contained in Crim. P. 11 and the warning detailed in Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969), were not met when he entered his plea to simple robbery. We have declared on numerous occasions that Boykin v. Alabama, supra, is not retroactive. Furthermore, Crim. P. 11 was not in effect when the defendant originally entered his plea. People v. Edwards, 186 Colo. 129, 526 P.2d 144 (1974); Ward v. People, 172 Colo. 244, 472 P.2d 673 (1970).

The standards for conducting a providency hearing at the time the plea was entered were contained in C.R.S. 1953, 39-7-8. Basically, the statute which was then in effect governing providency hearings required only that the accused be advised of the consequences of his plea and the crime with which he was charged. The defendant in this case received the requisite advice and was given a copy of the information, waived the reading of the information, and acknowledged guilt in a statement to the probation department. He now seeks hindsight relief in a Crim. P. 35(b) proceeding.

No claim is made that the defendant is innocent or that any meritorious defense exists to the crime in issue. Stale claims are not favored, and relief will not be granted to correct an ancient procedural error. People v. Hubbard, 184 Colo. 243, 519 P.2d 945 (1974). The defendant is guilty of laches and is not entitled to post-conviction relief. See People v. Bucci, 184 Colo. 367, 520 P.2d 580 (1974). See also Ward v. People, *195 172 Colo. 244, 472 P.2d 673 (1970), where the facts parallel those in the instant case.

Accordingly, we affirm.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE PRINGLE, MR. JUSTICE DAY, and MR. JUSTICE LEE concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

MR. JUSTICE ERICKSON.

This Crim. P. 35(b) appeal is without merit. Again, a providency hearing is in issue.

The defendant, Clarence Arnold, entered a plea of guilty on December 12, 1960, to a charge of simple robbery. C.R.S. 1953, 40-5-1. He was represented by counsel and a full probation report was made. Thereafter, the defendant was sentenced to the penitentiary and was released. Since that time, he has been convicted of at least three other felonies and now seeks to change his plea or to expunge the conviction which occurred nearly fifteen years ago. He contends that the requirements contained in Crim. P. 11 and the warning detailed in Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969), were not met when he entered his plea to simple robbery. We have declared on numerous occasions that Boykin v. Alabama, supra, is not retroactive. Furthermore, Crim. P. 11 was not in effect when the defendant originally entered his plea. People v. Edwards, 186 Colo. 129, 526 P.2d 144 (1974); Ward v. People, 172 Colo. 244, 472 P.2d 673 (1970).

The standards for conducting a providency hearing at the time the plea was entered were contained in C.R.S. 1953, 39-7-8. Basically, the statute which was then in effect governing providency hearings required only that the accused be advised of the consequences of his plea and the crime with which he was charged. The defendant in this case received the requisite advice and was given a copy of the information, waived the reading of the information, and acknowledged guilt in a statement to the probation department. He now seeks hindsight relief in a Crim. P. 35(b) proceeding.

No claim is made that the defendant is innocent or that any meritorious defense exists to the crime in issue. Stale claims are not favored, and relief will not be granted to correct an ancient procedural error. People v. Hubbard, 184 Colo. 243, 519 P.2d 945 (1974). The defendant is guilty of laches and is not entitled to post-conviction relief. See People v. Bucci, 184 Colo. 367, 520 P.2d 580 (1974). See also Ward v. People, *195 172 Colo. 244, 472 P.2d 673 (1970), where the facts parallel those in the instant case.

Accordingly, we affirm.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE PRINGLE, MR. JUSTICE DAY, and MR. JUSTICE LEE concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

544 P.2d 968, 190 Colo. 193, 1976 Colo. LEXIS 767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-arnold-colo-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack