CO Code § 16-7-207 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 16 - Criminal Proceedings|Article 7 - Separate Trial - Arraignment - Plea Agreements - Deferred Prosecution and Deferred Sentencing|Part 2 - Arraignment|§ 16-7-207. Court's Duty to Inform on First Appearance in Court and on Pleas of Guilty

  At the first appearance of the defendant in court or upon arraignment, whichever is first in time, it is the duty of the judge to inform the defendant and make certain that the defendant understands the following:   The defendant need make no statement, and any statement made can and may be used against him or her.    The defendant has a right to counsel.    If the defendant is an indigent person, he or she may make application for a court-appointed attorney, and, upon payment of the application fee, he or she will be assigned counsel as provided by law or applicable rule of criminal procedure.    Any plea the defendant makes must be voluntary on his or her part and not the result of undue influence or coercion on the part of anyone.    The defendant has a right to bail, if the offense is bailable, and the amount of bail that has been set by the court.    The defendant has a right to a jury trial.    The nature of the charges against the defendant.       The court shall not accept a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest) without first determining that the defendant is advised of all the matters set forth in subsection (1) of this section and also determining:   That the defendant understands the nature of the charge and the elements of the offense to which he is pleading and the effect of his plea;    That the plea is voluntary on defendant's part and is not the result of undue influence or coercion on the part of anyone;    That he understands the right to trial by jury;    That he understands the possible penalty or penalties and the possible places of incarceration;    That the defendant understands that the court will not be bound by any representations made to the defendant by anyone concerning the penalty to be imposed or the granting or the denial of probation, unless the representations are included in a formal plea agreement approved by the court and supported by the findings of the presentence report, if any; and    That there is a factual basis for the plea. If the plea is entered as a result of a plea agreement, the court shall explain to the defendant and satisfy itself that the defendant understands the basis for the plea agreement, and the defendant may then waive the establishment of a factual basis for the particular charge to which he pleads guilty.       This section applies to prosecutions for violations of municipal charters and prosecutions for violations of municipal ordinances, except for traffic infractions for which the penalty is only a fine and arrest is prohibited and for which a court shall not issue a bench warrant, including a warrant for failure to appear.     History. Source: L. 72: R&RE, p. 222, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 39-7-207 . L. 90: (1)(c) amended, p. 1039, § 2, effective July 1. L. 92: (1)(c) amended, p. 465, § 1, effective July 1. L. 2013: (1) amended,(HB 13-1210), ch. 306, p. 1623, § 2, effective January 1, 2014. L. 2016: (3) added,(HB 16-1309), ch. 366, p. 1541, § 3, effective (see editor's note). L. 2017: (3) amended,(HB 17-1083), ch. 128, p. 438, § 1, effective July 1, 2018 (see editor's note).    Editor's note:   The effective date of subsection (3) was changed from May 1, 2017, to July 1, 2018, by H.B. 17-1316. (See L. 2017, p. 607 .)   Cross references:   For the legislative declaration in HB 16-1309, see section 1 of chapter 366, Session Laws of Colorado 2016.   ANNOTATION   This section and Crim. P. 11(b) require that a trial court must make certain determinations before it accepts a plea of guilty or a plea of nolo contendere. People v. Lambert, 189 Colo. 264 , 539 P.2d 1238 (1975).   In pleading guilty, defendant must be adequately advised of nature and critical elements of offense charged and reading of information may suffice. Wilson v. People, 708 P.2d 792 (Colo. 1985).   If the trial judge doubted the credibility of the charge, even though a factual basis for the guilty plea existed, his duty was to vacate the guilty plea, enter a plea of not guilty, and set the case for trial. People v. Worsley, 191 Colo. 351 , 553 P.2d 73 (1976).   No set ritual. The overriding consideration in analyzing a record pertaining to a guilty plea or a plea of nolo contendere is that a set ritual is not required. People v. Lambert, 189 Colo. 264 , 539 P.2d 1238 (1975).   Detailed discussion of possible locales of imprisonment not required. Wilson v. People, 708 P.2d 792 (Colo. 1985).   Or precise language in record. If the record reflects that the trial court had assured itself that defendant's plea was voluntary and intelligently entered with full knowledge of the nature and elements of the offense and of the waiver of his rights as an accused person, then lack of precise language in the record expressing these things is not of itself a valid reason to reverse acceptance of a plea of nolo contendere. People v. Lambert, 189 Colo. 264 , 539 P.2d 1238 (1975).   Record must reflect factual basis for guilty plea and factual basis may be established by record as a whole. Wilson v. People, 708 P.2d 792 (Colo. 1985).   Full compliance would reduce challenges. The failure of a trial judge to make certain that the record expressly reflects full compliance with this section and Crim. P. 11 before he accepts a plea of guilty or a plea of nolo contendere frequently generates a challenge. Full compliance would certainly diminish challenges and appeals. People v. Lambert, 189 Colo. 264 , 539 P.2d 1238 (1975).   The court is not bound by a recommendation; in its discretion it may refuse to grant the district attorney's sentence concession. People v. Wright, 38 Colo. App. 271, 559 P.2d 249 (1976), aff'd, 194 Colo. 448 , 573 P.2d 551 (1978).   Duty to comply with Crim. P. 32(e). The provision in Crim. P. 11(b)(5) and subsection (2)(e), that the court will not be bound by representations made to the defendant “unless the representations are included in a formal plea agreement approved by the court and supported by the findings of the presentence report ...”, does not free the court from complying with Crim. P. 32(e), which requires that if the court decides that the final disposition should not include the charge or sentence concessions contemplated by a plea agreement, as provided in Crim. P. 11(f), it shall so advise the defendant and then call on the defendant to either affirm or withdraw his plea of guilty or nolo contendere. People v. Wright, 38 Colo. App. 271, 559 P.2d 249 (1976), aff'd, 194 Colo. 448 , 573 P.2d 551 (1978).   Merely informing the defendant that the court will not be bound by any recommendation or representation by anyone concerning sentencing or probation does not obviate the necessity of its complying with Crim. P. 32(e). People v. Wright, 38 Colo. App. 271, 559 P.2d 249 (1976), aff'd, 194 Colo. 448 , 573 P.2d 551 (1978).   Authority to vacate guilty plea. Although a trial judge's authority to dismiss a criminal charge on his own motion prior to trial, except as expressly authorized by statute or rule, is narrowly limited, a trial court does have the authority to vacate a guilty plea and enter a not guilty plea if the charges were not supported by facts appearing in the record of all court appearances and in the presentencing report. People v. Carino, 193 Colo. 412 , 566 P.2d 1061 (1977).   A trial court is not generally required to inform a defendant of the collateral consequences of his guilty plea. People v. Moore, 841 P.2d 320 (Colo. App. 1992); People v. Jones, 957 P.2d 1046 (Colo. App. 1997).   To satisfy due process, a defendant must be informed only of the direct consequences of his guilty plea, which include those which have a definite, immediate, and largely automatic effect on the range of possible punishment. People v. Moore, 841 P.2d 320 (Colo. App. 1992); People v. Jones, 957 P.2d 1046 (Colo. App. 1997).   Accordingly, a guilty plea is not invalid for failure of a trial court to warn a defendant of its possible effect on future criminal liability. People v. Heinz, 589 P.2d 931 (Colo. 1979); People v. Moore, 841 P.2d 320 (Colo. App. 1992); People v. Jones, 957 P.2d 1046 (Colo. App. 1997).   Conditional guilty pleas are not authorized in Colorado by statute or court rule. People v. Neuhaus, 240 P.3d 391 (Colo. App. 2009), aff'd, 2012 CO 65, 289 P.3d 19; People v. Hoffman, 2012 CO 66, 289 P.3d 24; Escobedo v. People, 2012 CO 67, 289 P.3d 25.