State v. Beckstead

2004 UT App 338, 100 P.3d 267, 509 Utah Adv. Rep. 26, 2004 Utah App. LEXIS 345, 2004 WL 2187157

• Court: Court of Appeals of Utah
• Decided: September 30, 2004
• Docket: 20030217-CA
• Status: Published

Opinions

OPINION

THORNE, Judge:

¶ 1 Larry Niel Beckstead pleaded guilty to one count of driving under the influence of alcohol with prior offenses, a third-degree felony pursuant to Utah Code section 41-6-44. See Utah Code Ann. § 41-6-44 (1998). Beckstead filed a timely motion to withdraw his guilty plea on the grounds that he was intoxicated when he entered the plea. The trial court denied Beckstead’s motion, and he appeals. We reverse.

BACKGROUND

¶ 2 Beckstead entered his guilty plea on September 18, 2002. Pursuant to rule 11 of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure, the trial court conducted a colloquy with Beck-stead. As a part of this colloquy, the trial court asked Beckstead if he was “under the influence of alcohol or drugs here today in court,” to which Beckstead responded “no.”

¶ 3 As the colloquy progressed, the prosecutor alerted the court that Beckstead had been drinking and following exchange occurred:

Prosecutor: [FJrankly, [Beckstead has] been drinking today and a, that concerns me.

Court: You say he has been drinking today?

Prosecutor: I can tell he’s been drinking. I can smell it.

Court: I thought I just asked you Mr.—

Beckstead: Well, it was early this morning.

Court: Well, I just asked you if you had had anything to drink, any alcohol or drugs, and you said no.

Beckstead: I’m not under the influence, Your Honor.

Court: Okay. You’re not under the influence of alcohol—

Beckstead: No (short inaudible, two speakers) this morning.

Court: — but you have been drinking.

Beckstead: I have a little bit of a back problem.

Court: Well, I do too but I don’t drink to take care of it[.]

The court made no further inquiry as to Beckstead’s potential intoxication and accepted his guilty plea. The court did, however, make two further references to Beekstead’s “show[ing] up in my court drinking,” and Beckstead’s drinking also appeared to play a role in the court’s decision to take Beckstead into custody following his plea. As the court stated, “this is just too dangerous to leave you out with this kind of a situation.”

¶ 4 Beckstead filed a timely motion to withdraw his guilty plea, alleging in part that he was intoxicated when he entered the plea.¹ The trial court held a hearing on Beckstead’s motion, prior to which the court reviewed the videotape of Beckstead’s plea hearing. Neither side presented evidence at the hearing, although Beckstead made a statement wherein he described his experience in custody following the plea hearing. Beckstead described an officer telling him that, based on twenty-five years of law enforcement experience, his opinion was that Beckstead was very intoxicated. Beckstead also stated that he believed he was going to be charged with public intoxication following the plea hearing. After listening to Beckstead’s comments, the court made the following statement and findings:

[A]s I look at the tape, I don’t see anything on the, the tape that suggests to me that you were impaired. And I didn’t notice anything at the time we took the plea. I mean, I didn’t see slurred speech, I didn’t see wavering or, or having trouble standing up or talking at all. I mean, you seemed to understand all of the questions that I put to you and your answers appeared to be articulate and coherent. So I think the fact that maybe you had something to drink, I just don’t think that that somehow impaired your ability to enter that plea on the, on the day that you did.

So I’m going to find that we satisfied [r]ule 11. I’m also going to find that the plea in this case was both voluntary and knowing. And you may have been drinking but I just don’t think that you were under the influence of an alcohol to a degree that it rendered you incapable of understanding what was going on that day.

The court then denied Beckstead’s motion to withdraw his plea. Beckstead appeals.

ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 5 Beckstead argues that he was under the influence of alcohol at the time he entered his plea; that the trial court failed to adequately ensure that his guilty plea was knowing and voluntary after the judge had notice of his alcohol consumption the morning of the plea hearing; and that the trial court erred in denying his subsequent motion to withdraw his plea. “We review a trial court’s denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” State v. Blair, 868 P.2d 802, 805 (Utah 1993). We apply a “ ‘ “clearly erroneous” standard for the trial court’s findings of fact made in conjunction with that decision.’ ” State v. Benvenuto, 1999 UT 60,¶ 10, 983 P.2d 556 (quoting State v. Holland, 921 P.2d 430, 433 (Utah 1996)) (other citation omitted). However, “[i]n the context of rule 11 colloquies, the ‘ultimate question of whether the trial court strictly complied with constitutional and procedural requirements for entry of a guilty plea is a question of law that is reviewed for correctness.’ ” State v. Hittle, 2004 UT 46, ¶ 4, 94 P.3d 268 (quoting Benvenuto, 1999 UT 60 at ¶ 10, 983 P.2d 556).

ANALYSIS

¶ 6 The procedures for entering a guilty plea are set forth in rule 11 of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure. See State v. Benvenuto, 1999 UT 60,¶ 11, 983 P.2d 556. “ ‘Rule 11(e) squarely places on trial courts the burden of ensuring that constitutional and [r]ule 11(e) requirements are complied with when a guilty plea is entered.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Gibbons, 740 P.2d 1309, 1312 (Utah 1987)). “This ‘strict compliance’ rule requires the trial court to establish (1) that ‘the defendant’s guilty plea is truly knowing and voluntary,’ and (2) that ‘the defendant knowingly waived his or her constitutional rights and understood the elements of the crime.’ ” Id. (quoting Stale v. Abeyta, 852 P.2d 993, 995 (Utah 1993)).

¶7 Beckstead’s appeal presents the issue of what steps a trial court must take to ensure that a plea is knowing and voluntary once the court has been placed on notice that a defendant has been drinking alcohol just prior to the plea hearing. In this case, the court relied on Beckstead’s assertion that he was not under the influence of alcohol, as well as the apparent absence of outward signs of intoxication, to determine that his alcohol consumption did not affect the knowing and voluntary nature of Beekstead’s plea. Under the circumstances of this case, we cannot agree that this was sufficient.

¶ 8 “ ‘[M]ere general questions which ask whether a plea is “voluntary” are insufficient under [r]ule 11.’ ” State v. Mills, 898 P.2d 819, 824 (Utah Ct.App.1995) (quoting State v. Valencia, 776 P.2d 1332, 1335 (Utah Ct.App.1989)). Similarly, upon being placed on notice that Beckstead had been drinking, the trial court’s reliance on Beck-stead’s general statement that he was “not under the influence” was insufficient to satisfy its rule 11 obligations to ensure that Beck-stead had the capacity to knowingly and voluntarily enter a plea. This is particularly true in light of the well-known tendency of persons to understate their alcohol intake and level of intoxication to representatives of the justice system. See, e.g., Roylance v. Davies, 18 Utah 2d 395, 424 P.2d 142, 148 (Utah 1967) (“The defendant admits to a couple of drinks of whiskey. Hardly anyone ever admits to having taken more.” (Crockett, C.J., dissenting)); see also State v. East, 743 P.2d 1211, 1211 (Utah 1987) (affirming driving under the influence conviction of driver who informed police that he had “had a couple of beers”); Strange v. Ostlund, 594 P.2d 877, 879 (Utah 1979) (finding fact question on defendant’s intoxication despite his claim of only having had “two beers” three hours earlier).

¶ 9 Neither is it sufficient that Beck-stead exhibited no outward signs of intoxication to the court at the hearing or on the videotape thereof. Beckstead pleaded guilty to one felony count of driving under the influence with prior convictions, and had another felony count of driving under the influence dismissed pursuant to his plea agreement. Further, Beckstead admitted that he had been drinking prior to the plea hearing, and the prosecutor could smell the alcohol. This record reflects, at a minimum, a person with some considerable experience with aleo-hol consumption, if not a substantial drinking problem. There is no shortage of cases demonstrating that people with alcohol problems are often capable of appearing to be sober when in fact they are not. See, e.g., Burradell v. State, 326 Ark. 182, 931 S.W.2d 100, 101 (1996) (involving a defendant who appeared at his plea hearing smelling of alcohol and registering a .13 on a portable breath test but otherwise “displaying] no outward signs of intoxication”); Cole v. State, 493 So.2d 1333, 1335 (Miss.1986) (finding no probable cause for blood test revealing a blood-alcohol level of .246 because “[n]o aspect of Cole’s speech, appearance or behavior in any way indicated that he was under the influence of alcohol”). Accordingly, in light of the trial court’s awareness of Beckstead’s recent drinking and criminal history involving alcohol, it was insufficient to rely primarily on Beekstead’s outward appearance to determine that he was capable of entering his plea.

¶ 10 “ ‘What is at stake for an accused facing [punishment] demands the utmost solicitude of which courts are capable in canvassing the matter with the accused to make sure he has a full understanding of what the plea connotes and of its consequence.’ ” State v. Gibbons, 740 P.2d 1309, 1312 (Utah 1987) (quoting Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243—44, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969)). While a trial court is not ordinarily required to inquire beyond a defendant’s denial of drug or alcohol use, such a duty does arise upon the court’s becoming aware that a defendant has been drinking prior to the hearing or may otherwise be impaired. Here, the trial court was advised that Beekstead had been drinking, and Beekstead admitted as much, yet the court made no inquiry into the amount of alcohol that Beekstead had consumed or the amount of time that had elapsed since his last drink.² These inquiries represent the minimum inquiry necessary to quantify the defendant’s state of inebriation and create an informed opinion as to the defendant’s capacity to enter a plea. Without such supporting facts, the trial court’s finding that Beekstead had the capacity to enter a knowing and voluntary plea lacks a sufficient basis.

¶ 11 We conclude that the trial court’s knowledge that Beekstead had been drinking prior to the hearing triggered a duty of further inquiry to strictly comply with rule 11. Neither Beckstead’s self-evaluation that he was not intoxicated nor his outward appearance of sobriety was sufficient to satisfy the court’s obligation to ensure that Beck-stead’s plea to this felony offense was knowing and voluntary.³ Under these circumstances, the trial court did not strictly comply with its rule 11 obligations, and should have allowed Beekstead to withdraw his plea.

CONCLUSION

¶ 12 The trial court was on notice that Beekstead had been drinking prior to his plea hearing, but took no steps to determine his level of intoxication or otherwise establish that Beckstead’s guilty plea, and its accompanying waiver of constitutional rights, was truly knowing. Under these circumstances, there was an inadequate factual basis upon which the trial court could conclude that Beekstead was sufficiently sober to enter a knowing plea, and the court erred when it denied Beckstead’s motion to withdraw his plea. We reverse the trial court’s decision and remand this matter for further proceedings.

¶ 13 I CONCUR: NORMAN H. JACKSON, Judge.

1 . Beckstead has abandoned all other grounds for seeking withdrawal of his plea, and we do not address them here.

2 . Recognizing, as we have, that a defendant's statements about his or her alcohol consumption may not be reliable, we do not intend this opinion to limit a trial court's ability to employ other means to ensure a defendant's capacity in the appropriate circumstances.

3 . A trial court’s obligations flowing from rule 11 are designed to assure fairness and protect defendants, including those who choose to consume alcohol before a court appearance or even attempt to mislead the court about that alcohol consumption. We note, however, that at least one other jurisdiction has found such behavior to be grounds for exercise of the court’s contempt powers. See Burradell v. State, 326 Ark. 182, 931 S.W.2d 100, 103 (1996).