Utah Court of Appeals
Must trial courts inform defendants of their right to a speedy trial during plea colloquies? State v. Hittle Explained
Summary
David Hittle pleaded guilty to criminal non-support, but the trial court failed to inform him of his right to a speedy trial during the Rule 11 colloquy. The trial court denied Hittle’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, and he appealed the conviction.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
Background and Facts
David Hittle was charged with criminal non-support and pleaded guilty to a class A misdemeanor in exchange for dismissal of the felony charge. During the Rule 11 colloquy, the trial court informed Hittle of various constitutional rights he was waiving but failed to mention his right to a speedy trial. The court listed rights including confrontation of witnesses, presenting evidence, and having an impartial decision-maker, but omitted any reference to speedy trial rights. After pleading guilty, Hittle moved to withdraw his plea, which the trial court denied.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether the trial court’s failure to advise Hittle of his right to a speedy trial during the plea colloquy constituted plain error requiring reversal. The State argued the error was harmless since Hittle could not show he would have proceeded to trial but for the omission.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals applied plain error analysis and found all three elements satisfied. First, the court erred by failing to comply with Rule 11(e)(3), which requires informing defendants they are waiving “the right to a speedy public trial.” Second, the error was obvious given prior precedent in State v. Tarnawiecki establishing that strict compliance, not substantial compliance, is required with Rule 11. Third, the court presumed harm when constitutional rights are not properly explained, reasoning that defendants cannot make fully informed decisions without knowing all rights they are waiving.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces Utah’s requirement for strict compliance with Rule 11’s plea colloquy requirements. Trial courts must specifically inform defendants of their right to a speedy trial, and omitting this constitutional right will result in presumed harm and reversal. The decision also clarifies that the right to a speedy trial is distinct from other trial rights and must be separately addressed during plea proceedings.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Hittle
Citation
2002 UT App 134
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20000712-CA
Date Decided
April 25, 2002
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
A trial court must strictly comply with Rule 11(e)(3) by informing defendants of their right to a speedy trial before accepting a guilty plea, and omission of this requirement constitutes reversible plain error.
Standard of Review
Plain error analysis for unpreserved claims
Practice Tip
Always ensure strict compliance with all Rule 11(e)(3) requirements during plea colloquies, including specifically mentioning the defendant’s right to a speedy trial, as substantial compliance is insufficient.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.