Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
State v. Hittle
Citations: 2004 UT 46; 94 P.3d 268; 501 Utah Adv. Rep. 20; 2004 Utah LEXIS 112; 2004 WL 1293247Docket: 20020504
Court: Utah Supreme Court; June 11, 2004; Utah; State Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of Utah reviewed the case of State of Utah v. David Hittle, where the defendant sought to withdraw his guilty plea due to alleged ineffective assistance of counsel and the district court's failure to inform him fully of his rights during the plea colloquy. Hittle was charged with criminal non-support and entered a plea agreement, pleading guilty to a class A misdemeanor while the felony charge was dismissed. During the plea colloquy, the district court omitted the term "speedy" in reference to Hittle's right to a speedy public trial, which was a requirement under Rule 11(e)(3) of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure. After the district court denied Hittle's motion to withdraw his plea, he appealed, arguing that the omission rendered his plea unknowing and involuntary. The Utah Court of Appeals agreed, applying a three-part test for plain error, and reversed the district court's decision. The State petitioned for certiorari to the Supreme Court of Utah. The Supreme Court, applying the same standard of review as the court of appeals, found that the omission of the word "speedy" did not constitute plain error, as determined in a similar case, State v. Dean. Consequently, the court reversed the court of appeals' decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing Hittle to address his remaining Rule 11 challenges and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The opinion was concurred by several justices, and Justice Durrant recused himself from participation.