3 Conn. Cir. Ct. 206 | Conn. App. Ct. | 1965
This appeal is from a judgment based upon an information charging the defendant with the crime of aggravated assault in violation of § 53-16 of the General Statutes. The record discloses that on November 10, 1964, the defendant entered in writing in open court, with the written approval of his counsel, a plea of nolo contendere. Upon acceptance of the plea, the court adjudged the defendant guilty. See Practice Book 476,
It is axiomatic that the plea of nolo contendere cannot be entered by the defendant as a matter of right; its acceptance by the court is entirely a matter of grace. See 4 Wharton, Criminal Law and Procedure § 1903; Hudson v. United States, 272 U.S. 451, 456; Hocking Valley Ry. Co. v. United States, 210 Fed. 735, 737; Tucker v. United States, 196 Fed. 260, 262. Because the plea of nolo contendere is equivalent to a plea of guilty for the purposes of the case, a defendant who has entered a nolo plea is deemed to have waived all defects in the pleadings and his right to a jury trial. See Dillon v. United States, 113 F.2d 334, 339; Farnsworth v. Zerbst, 97 F.2d 255, 256; In re Lanni, 47 R.I. 158, 161. The plea of nolo contendere, like the demurrer, admits for the purposes of the case all facts that are well pleaded. See State v. O’Brien, 18 R.I. 105, 107. The only basic characteristic of the plea of nolo contendere which differentiates it from a guilty plea is that the de
“The reviewing court will presume, in the absence of a contrary showing, that the ruling of the trial court on an application for leave to withdraw a plea of . . . nolo contendere was proper.” 24A C.J.S. 639, Criminal Law, § 1851. So far as the record here discloses, the plea of nolo contendere was made deliberately and understandingly, without coercion or pressure, and its import and effect were fully understood. See State v. Carta, 90 Conn. 79, 81. In the defendant’s brief, the claim is made that “[a]fter considering all the factors involved [in the case], it was agreed between the prosecuting officer and counsel for the defendant that the defendant should receive a suspended jail sentence.” This was substantially the same argument addressed to us on oral
There is no error.
In this opinion Kosicki and Cicala, Js., concurred.
“[Practice Book] Sec. 476. PLEA OF NOLO CONTENDERE. A plea of nolo contendere shall be in writing and, when accepted by the court, shall be followed by a finding of guilty.”
The reference is to 2 Hawkins, Pleas of the Crown (8th Ed. 1824) p. 466, critically examined by Mr. Justice Stone (as he then was) in Hudson v. United States, 272 U.S. 451. Por another version of the early common-law form of the plea, see 1 Chitty, Criminal Law, p. 430 (1836). Extensive discussions of the plea of nolo contendere may be found in Lenvin & Meyers, “Nolo Contendere: Its Nature and Implications,” 51 Yale L.J. 1255, and note, 89 A.L.R.2d 540, supplementing note, 152 A.L.R. 253.