Court Opinion

ID: 9793462
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:48:18.27209+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:05:13.901916
License: Public Domain

Maupin, J.,
with whom Agosti, J., agrees, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I agree that the district court became too involved in the plea negotiation process. I do not agree that this involvement amounted to coercion. Thus, I would affirm the order denying post-conviction relief.
Ordinarily, the permutations and risks discussed in the colloquy between the district court and this appellant should only have been explored between appellant and his attorney. Given the options with which appellant was confronted, and given the expertise and experience of appellant’s trial counsel, it is safe to assume that a full discussion of the matter occurred prior to the in-court proceedings that led to acceptance of the plea arrangement. It is evident, however, that the district court felt the need to elaborate on the risks of a trial on the original charges. That elaboration, however ill-advised, and regardless of whether his comments should have been left unsaid in deference to the interaction between appellant and his counsel, amounts only to a candid assessment of the substantial benefits of the negotiated settlement.