C.R.J.P. 3

History

Source: Entire chapter repealed and reenacted June 16, 1988, effective January 1, 1989; (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(8), (a)(9), and (b)(3) amended and adopted April 17, 1997, effective July 1, 1997; (a) amended and adopted October 30, 2014, effective November 1, 2014. ANNOTATION Law reviews. For article, ‘‘Representing the Mentally Retarded or Disabled Parent in a Colorado Dependent or Neglected Child Ac- tion’’, see 11 Colo. Law. 693 (1982). For ar- ticle, ‘‘The Nuts and Bolts of Juvenile Delin- quency’’, see 31 Colo. Law. 19 (Oct. 2002). This rule is the substantial equivalent of Rule 11, Crim. P., so that the court may analo- gize to it and the cases dealing with a guilty plea withdrawal. People in Interest of J.F.C., 660 P.2d 7 (Colo. App. 1982). And codifies juvenile’s constitutional rights. This rule is the codification of the stan- dards guaranteeing a juvenile’s constitutional rights. People in Interest of J.F.C., 660 P.2d 7 (Colo. App. 1982). Test to determine valid waiver of rights. In determining whether there has been a valid waiver of a juvenile’s rights, the factual circum- stances of each case must be examined; that is, the ‘‘totality of circumstances’’ test is applied. People v. Cunningham, 678 P.2d 1058 (Colo. App. 1983). Presence of parent. The parent is there to assure that the juvenile is provided with paren- tal guidance and moral support, as well as some assurance that any waiver of the juvenile’s rights is made knowingly and intelligently. People in Interest of J.F.C., 660 P.2d 7 (Colo. App. 1982). Of critical significance to any knowing and intelligent waiver of a constitutional right by a juvenile is the presence of the parent. People in Interest of J.F.C., 660 P.2d 7 (Colo. App. 1982); People v. Cunningham, 678 P.2d 1058 (Colo. App. 1983). The Colorado rules of juvenile procedure do not require that a child must be accompa- nied by a parent, guardian, or legal custo- dian at all proceedings, even though the juve- nile’s first court appearance requires that a parent, guardian, or legal custodian be fully advised of the child’s rights. Therefore, juve- nile’s waiver of rights during trial, adjudication of delinquency, or sentencing is not necessarily invalid. People in Interest of S.A.R., 860 P.2d 573 (Colo. App. 1993). Failure to comply with rule voids disposi- tion. Where the referee in two prior delin- quency hearings failed to comply with the man- dates of this rule, those prior dispositions are constitutionally void, and cannot be used as to basis for enhanced punishment proceedings un- der § 19-3-113.1. People v. M.A.W., 651 P.2d 433 (Colo. App. 1982). Court not required to warn of possible future consequences of guilty plea. In the ab- sence of a specific requirement by statute or rule, a juvenile court is not required to advise the juvenile of consequences of a guilty plea which would result from the future commission of felonies. People v. District Court, 191 Colo. 298, 552 P.2d 297 (1976). Child does not have an absolute constitu- tional or statutory right to bail pending adju- dication of the charges filed against him in ju- venile court. L.O.W. v. District Court, 623 P.2d 1253 (Colo. 1981). Applicability of Rule 46, C.R. Crim. P., to juvenile proceedings. Rule 46, C.R. Crim. P., does not apply to admission to bail in juvenile proceedings to the extent it is inconsistent with this rule and the children’s code. L.O.W. v. District Court, 623 P.2d 1253 (Colo. 1981). Presumption of release pending disposi- tional hearing. A trial court may detain a juve- nile without bail only after giving due weight to a presumption that a juvenile should be released pending a dispositional hearing, except in nar- rowly defined circumstances where the state establishes that detention is necessary to protect the child from imminent harm or to protect others in the community from serious bodily harm which the child is likely to inflict. L.O.W. v. District Court, 623 P.2d 1253 (Colo. 1981). Where juvenile’s natural parents’ parental rights have been terminated and the juvenile has been placed in the custody of the state department of social services, the department could act properly on juvenile’s behalf as his legal custodian. People v. Cunningham, 678 P.2d 1058 (Colo. App. 1983). Applied in People in Interest of M.M., 41 Colo. App. 44, 582 P.2d 692 (1978); People v. Alward, 654 P.2d 327 (Colo. App. 1982); People in Interest of C.R.B., 662 P.2d 198 (Colo. App. 1983).