People v. Finney Deferred
– Revocation
Facts: Mr. Finney pled to sexual assault, a class-four
felony, and a 3˚ assault, a class one misdemeanor. The trial court deferred the
sexual assault conviction, and imposed concurrent probation on the third degree
assault conviction. At the revocation hearing, Mr. Finney’s attorney waived his
right to be advised of the potential penalties.
Issue: Whether the Due Process Clauses require a court
to advise of the possible penalties not withstanding counsel’s waiver?
Held: No.
Reasoning:
The Court of Appeals went through
the presentence report, the plea paperwork, and all the failed plea colloquies
where the presiding judge correctly advised Mr. Finney of the potential prison
sentence, and found that Mr. Finney received an adequate advisement of the
potential prison sentence. Further, the Court found Mr. Finney’s attorney
waived advisement, and such an advisement is not required to revoke someone’s
deferred sentence. The Court wrote, “Thus, looking to the record as a whole, we
conclude that defendant's admission that he violated the terms of the deferred
judgment agreement was valid and did not offend the Due Process Clause even
though he was not readvised of the potential penalties.” Opinion by Judge Bernard, Russel, J., concurs; Hawthorne, J., dissent
No comments:
Post a Comment