Colorado § 16-7-205 - Pleas authorized on arraignment.

§ 16-7-205. Pleas authorized on arraignment.

(1) A defendant personally, or, where permissible, by counsel may orally enter:

(a) A plea of guilty; or

(b) A plea of not guilty; or

(c) A plea of nolo contendere (no contest) with the consent of the court; or

(d) A plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, in which event a not guilty plea may also be entered.

Source: L. 72: R&RE, p. 221, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 39-7-205.

ANNOTATION

Annotator's note. Since § 16-7-205 is similar to repealed § 39-7-5, CRS 53, CSA, C. 48, § 479, and laws antecedent thereto, relevant cases construing those provisions have been included in the annotations to this section.

Entry of plea by counsel for defendant is sufficient. Davis v. People, 77 Colo. 546, 238 P. 25 (1925).

When the essential presence of an accused in a court having jurisdiction is a fulfilled condition, there is no express requirement in the federal law that in pleading to an indictment he must actually speak for himself or remain mute in order that a valid plea may be entered. Marler v. People, 139 Colo. 23, 336 P.2d 101 (1959).

Declaration of plea may be made orally, by defendant or counsel. Minich v. People, 8 Colo. 440, 9 P. 4 (1885); Boyd v. People, 108 Colo. 289, 116 P.2d 193 (1941); Marler v. People, 139 Colo. 23, 336 P.2d 101 (1959).

But plea must be entered in open court. A message from counsel for defendant to the prosecuting attorney, authorizing the entry of a plea, does not authorize the acceptance of such a plea. Whether by defendant or his counsel, the plea must be entered orally and in open court. Boyd v. People, 108 Colo. 289, 116 P.2d 193 (1941).

Withdrawal of plea is not a matter of right. In the absence of statute or of peculiar circumstances, a defendant in a criminal case is not entitled as a matter of right to withdraw a plea duly made to an indictment or information, in order that he may file another plea or interpose objections to the proceedings which should have been presented before the plea; hence the action of a trial court in refusing a change of plea will not be reversed if there is no abuse of discretion. Abshier v. People, 87 Colo. 507, 289 P. 1081 (1930).

Where a defendant in a criminal case is arraigned and enters pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity, he does not thereafter have an absolute right to withdraw those pleas and enter a plea of guilty in order to avoid prosecution upon another information which includes habitual criminal counts. Matz v. People, 133 Colo. 45, 291 P.2d 1059 (1956).

Defendants cannot withdraw consent which was freely given simply because the sentence which the court imposes is not to their liking. Williams v. People, 134 Colo. 580, 307 P.2d 466 (1957).

Application to change a plea is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and its ruling will be reversed only for an abuse of that discretion, resulting in direct prejudice to the defendant whose application is denied. Matz v. People, 133 Colo. 45, 291 P.2d 1059 (1956).

No abuse of discretion in refusing defendant permission to change plea. A trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant the defendant permission to withdraw his plea of nolo contendere and to reinstate a plea of not guilty. People v. Canino, 181 Colo. 207, 508 P.2d 1273 (1973).

Nolo contendere plea should be upheld. Nolo contendere plea that is voluntarily and understandingly made, with a factual basis that appears in the record, should be upheld. People v. Canino, 181 Colo. 207, 508 P.2d 1273 (1973).