Case Title: Smith v. People

Citation: 428 P.2d 69

Docket Number: 22057

State: colorado

Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Date: 1967-05-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
428 P.2d 69 (1967) Forrest Lee SMITH, Plaintiff in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. No. 22057. Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. May 22, 1967. *70 Donald W. Stacey, Grand Junction, for plaintiff in error. Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendant in error. KELLEY, Justice. This matter is here on a writ of error directed to the ruling of the trial court denying Smith's (plaintiff in error) motion to vacate and set aside his sentence under Colo.R.Crim.P. 35(b). The trial court denied the relief sought without a hearing. The motion to vacate the judgment of guilty alleges, inter alia, the following: That Smith entered a plea of guilty to a charge of forgery on March 23, 1965; that on April 1, 1965, he was sentenced to a term of not less than ten and no more than fourteen years in the Colorado State Penitentiary; *71 that the court accepted his plea of guilty while defendant was without counsel; that he "was coerced into entering a plea of guilty"; and that the probation officer of Mesa County exceeded his authority when he recommended the sentence and punishment which this court imposed. The SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT assigns three errors which can be summarized as follows: Assignments of error 1 and 2 are so interrelated in the record of this case that they will be discussed together. Rule 35(b) requires the trial court to cause notice of the motion to vacate "to be served on the prosecuting attorney," and "grant a prompt hearing," "Unless the motion and the files and record of the case show to the satisfaction of the court that the prisoner is not entitled to relief * * *." (Emphasis added.) The question thus presented to us in determining the correctness of the trial court's ruling is: Did the motion, the files and the record contain sufficient evidence, in and of themselves, to justify the court in ruling as it did? The motion, prepared by the defendant pro se, contains these statements: The reporter's transcript of the proceedings on arraignment, so far as it relates to waiver of counsel, contains the following dialogue: The files also contain an "affidavit" executed by Smith on March 31, 1965, before the probation officer, waiving his right to file an application for probation and requesting the court "to proceed with the final hearing and disposition of this matter without further delay." The "affidavit" concludes with this statement: The testimony of Detective Landry of the Grand Junction Police Department was *73 used to sustain the burden of proof on a plea of guilty. It shows that on March 22, 1965, in the presence of Captain Abbey, the defendant signed a typed statement relating to the commission of the crime which opened with this preface: At the conclusion of the statement appeared the following in Smith's own handwriting: The files also contain the Presentence Report which discloses that Smith "is a 32 year old divorced white male. * * * He states that he graduated from High School with good grades and has taken two vocational courses since then. His criminal record goes back 14 years or until about the time that he finished high school." Information furnished to the probation officer by a relative confirmed the "good grades" in high school and also his FBI record, in these words: "To sustain a claim that counsel was waived, the record must show * * * that the accused was offered counsel but intelligently and understandingly rejected the offer." Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506, 82 S. Ct. 884, 8 L. Ed. 2d 70. The quotations from the record constituted sufficient evidence from which the trial court could properly find that Smith intelligently and understandingly waived his right to counsel. See also Frame v. Hudspeth, 309 U.S. 632, 60 S. Ct. 712, 84 L. Ed. 989; Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S. Ct. 1019, 82 L. Ed. 1461. It should be noted that the defendant did not allege that he did not understand the nature of the offense with which he was charged, nor did he allege that he had a defense to it. However, he claims that he was coerced into entering a plea of guilty by the threat of the filing of similar charges on other checks and an habitual criminal charge. In effect, the defendant's 35(b) petition stated nothing more on this point than that he engaged in "plea bargaining." This allegation, standing alone, is not sufficient upon which to base a charge of coercion. It is apparent from the files and the record in this case that all of these charges could have been filed against him. It is not uncommon for prosecuting attorneys to agree to dismiss or not to file additional charges against the defendant in return for a guilty plea to certain charges. We do not condemn this practice per se. As has been aptly stated, "The important thing is not that there shall be no `deal' or `bargain', but that the plea shall be a genuine one, by a defendant who is guilty; one who understands his situation, his rights, and the consequences of the plea, and is neither deceived nor coerced." Cortez v. United States, 9 Cir., 337 F.2d 699. See also Shelton v. United States, 5 Cir., 246 F.2d 571. The record shows that the prosecutor kept the bargain which he had made with Smith and charged him with no other or additional offenses. The record itself also amply shows, as we have pointed out, that the defendant well understood his situation, his rights, and the consequences of his plea. Under such circumstances, it is clear, therefore, that there was no requirement for a hearing on this allegation of the 35(b) petition. The facts disclosed by the record, on which the trial court based its *74 ruling, are clearly distinguishable from those in Roberts v. People, 158 Colo. 76, 404 P.2d 848, and Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487, 82 S. Ct. 510, 7 L. Ed. 2d 473, cited by plaintiff in error as authority for his position. Defendant's third assignment of error, that he was deprived of his constitutional rights in that the probation officer exceeded his statutory authority in recommending to the court that defendant receive a maximum sentence, is bottomed on the proposition that the statutes do not expressly authorize the probation officer to recommend the sentence to be imposed. No cases are cited in support of the proposition. The probation officer is appointed by "[t]he judge or judges of the district court" and, before entering upon his duties, he is required to "take an oath of office as an officer of the court." C.R.S.1963, 39-16-1. (Emphasis added.) Where the court has discretion as to the penalty it is required by law to cause the probation officer to make a background investigation of the defendant before the imposition of the sentence. C.R.S.1963, 39-16-2. The investigation shall include any prior criminal record, the defendant's characteristics, financial condition and circumstances affecting his behavior "as may be helpful in imposing sentence and such other information as may be required by the court, in order that the court may be fully informed concerning" the defendant. (Emphasis added.) The probation officer is an aide of the court. He furnishes specific kinds of information "and such other information as may be required by the court." The court uses, as it pleases, whatever information is furnished. The totality of discretion rests with the trial court in the imposition of sentence. A recommendation by the probation officer is nothing more nor less than a recommendation. We feel certain that recommendations in the area of sentences are made by probation officers only upon request by the court. The imposition of punishment is a most difficult facet in the administration of criminal justice. If a judge has such confidence in the opinion of his probation officer that he wants a recommendation as to a suggested sentence, we are not going to deny him that assistance. See Williams v. People of State of New York, 337 U.S. 241, 69 S. Ct. 1079, 93 L. Ed. 1337. The judgment is affirmed. McWILLIAMS, J., not participating.