Utah Supreme Court

Does omitting the word 'speedy' from a rule 11 plea colloquy constitute plain error? State v. Hittle Explained

2004 UT 46
No. 20020504
June 11, 2004
Reversed

Summary

David Hittle pled guilty to criminal non-support after the district court advised him of his rights but omitted the word ‘speedy’ when describing his right to trial. The court of appeals reversed the denial of his motion to withdraw his plea, finding plain error in the rule 11 colloquy.

Analysis

The Utah Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Hittle provides important guidance on what constitutes reversible error in rule 11 plea colloquies. The case clarifies when technical omissions during plea proceedings rise to the level of plain error requiring reversal.

Background and Facts
David Hittle was charged with two counts of criminal non-support and entered into a plea agreement for the misdemeanor charge. During the plea colloquy, the district court informed Hittle of his constitutional rights but omitted the word “speedy” when advising him of his right to “a speedy public trial before an impartial jury” as required by Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e)(3). The court simply stated he had the right to “a public trial before an impartial jury.” The plea affidavit also omitted the word “speedy.”

Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether the district court’s failure to include the word “speedy” when reciting Hittle’s trial rights constituted plain error sufficient to render his guilty plea unknowing and involuntary under rule 11.

Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, holding that omitting the word “speedy” did not constitute plain error. The court applied its reasoning from the companion case State v. Dean, concluding that the error was neither obvious nor harmful. The court emphasized that strict compliance with rule 11 is required, but minor omissions do not automatically invalidate guilty pleas.

Practice Implications
This decision provides clarity for practitioners on the plain error standard in the context of plea colloquies. While courts must substantially comply with rule 11 requirements, not every technical deviation will result in reversal. Defense attorneys should preserve rule 11 challenges contemporaneously rather than relying on plain error review, as the standard for finding plain error remains demanding even for procedural violations.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

State v. Hittle

Citation

2004 UT 46

Court

Utah Supreme Court

Case Number

No. 20020504

Date Decided

June 11, 2004

Outcome

Reversed

Holding

A district court’s failure to include the word ‘speedy’ when advising a defendant of the right to a speedy public trial before an impartial jury during a rule 11 plea colloquy does not constitute plain error.

Standard of Review

Questions of law are reviewed for correctness; factual findings are reversed only if clearly erroneous

Practice Tip

When conducting rule 11 plea colloquies, ensure strict compliance with the exact language required by the rule to avoid potential appeals based on technical omissions.

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

    • Utah Court of Appeals

    Mecham v. Labor Commission

    October 15, 2010

    Under pre-2003 law, a workers’ compensation disability claim dies with the employee if no award was made during the employee’s lifetime, and such claims cannot be pursued by the estate.
    • Statutory Interpretation
    • |
    • Workers Compensation
    Read More
    • Utah Court of Appeals

    Carmichael v. Higginson

    August 3, 2017

    A demand note lacking the words ‘to order’ or ‘to bearer’ is not a negotiable instrument under the UCC but remains enforceable as a contract under simple contract law.
    • Contract Interpretation
    • |
    • Statutory Interpretation
    • |
    • Summary Judgment
    Read More
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.