Opinion ID: 2584667
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Did the court err by failing to advise Mr. Sena of the nature of the crime charged?

Text: [¶ 11] Rule 11(b)(1) requires a court, when accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, to address the defendant personally in open court and . . . determine that the defendant understands . . . [t]he nature of the charge to which the plea is offered. We have explained that, To be informed of `the nature of the charge' means that the defendant must be aware of `what acts were necessary to establish guilt.' Duke v. State, 2009 WY 74, ¶ 23, 209 P.3d 563, 571 (Wyo.2009) (quoting Sanchez v. State, 592 P.2d 1130, 1135 (Wyo.1979)). [¶ 12] After defense counsel indicated that Mr. Sena was prepared to enter a plea of no contest, the court began its colloquy with Mr. Sena, which included the following: THE COURT: The charge in this case is third offense domestic battery. The Information alleges that on August 13 of 2008 that you committed a third offense domestic battery on [your girlfriend]. The maximum penalty for that offense is five years confinement and a $2,000 fine. Do you understand the charge against you and the maximum penalty? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Sena claims that this did not adequately inform him of the nature of the charge against him because the district court did not read aloud the full text of the statute charging Mr. Sena with third domestic offense triggering a sentence of up to five years. [¶ 13] Mr. Sena offers no authority for the proposition that the court must read the full text of the statute to a defendant. Our precedent suggests otherwise. In Reyna, we deemed it sufficient for the court to inform a defendant that he was charged with conspiracy to commit forgery, without reading the statute or listing the elements of either conspiracy or forgery. In doing so, we noted that the change of plea hearing did not take place in a vacuum, Id., ¶ 12, 33 P.3d at 1133, and therefore, we review the totality of the circumstances to evaluate whether a plea was properly accepted. Id., ¶ 9, 33 P.3d at 1132. Among the circumstances we considered were that Mr. Reyna was an experienced criminal, with three previous penitentiary sentences for felony convictions, and that he was represented by an experienced public defender who reviewed the evidence and plea options with him. Id., ¶ 12, 33 P.3d at 1133. Given those circumstances, we were satisfied that the court had adequately advised Mr. Reyna of the nature of the charge against him. [¶ 14] Similarly, Mr. Sena has a lengthy criminal history, including several previous convictions on charges of battery against household members. He was also represented by an experienced defense attorney, who informed the court that he had gone over the affidavit of probable cause with Mr. Sena. And he does not contest it. He advises me that he does not contest those allegations, he just doesn't have any memory as a result of his excessive drinking that night. Mr. Sena was adequately informed of the nature of the charge against him, and the court was not required to read to him the text of the statute. [¶ 15] Mr. Sena also points out that the court did not ask him if he had been convicted of two previous instances of battery against household members, and further, did not inform Mr. Sena that such prior offenses must be against a household member in order to trigger the charge of Battery Third Offense Domestic. On this basis, Mr. Sena claims that the court did not adequately inform him of the nature of the charge against him. The record does not support this claim. [¶ 16] Three times during the colloquy, the court informed Mr. Sena that the charge against him was third offense domestic battery. Because his criminal history includes several previous convictions for domestic battery, we have no doubt that Mr. Sena understood the terms third offense, domestic, and battery. Indeed, he explicitly confirmed that he understood the charge. Furthermore, Mr. Sena did not contest the allegations set forth in the affidavit of probable cause. Those uncontested allegations included the fact that Mr. Sena has two previous convictions for domestic violence; one out of Colorado on 10-21-2004 and another on 10-05-2007 out of Laramie County. In light of all of the circumstances, we conclude that the court met the Rule 11 requirement of ensuring that Mr. Sena understood the charge of a third offense of battery against a household member.