State v. Bol (20)

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionPDF versionPDF version

State v. Bol (20)

Case Number
S-15-0706
Call Date
March 4, 2016
Court Number
Buffalo
Case Summary

S-15-0706 State v. Angelo Bol (Appellant)

Buffalo County District Court, Judge William T. Wright

Attorneys: George R. Love (Attorney General's Office) --- Charles D. Brewster (Anderson, Klein, Brewster & Brandt)(Appellant)

Criminal: Plea; first degree murder

Proceedings below: Appellant was convicted based on a plea of no contest and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Issues: 1) The district court erred by accepting the Appellant's plea of No Contest to the charge of First Degree Murder without properly and sufficiently confirming that the Appellant knew and understood the charges against him along with the rights that he was waiving by entering this plea of No Contest, 2) the district court erred in not properly making a record that the Appellant was properly informed of the length of penalties and the minimum and maximum sentences for the crime of First Degree Murder prior to accepting his plea of No Contest to that charge, 3) the district court erred by finding that the Appellant freely, intelligently, voluntarily, and understandingly, entered his plea of No Contest to the charge of First Degree Murder, 4) the district court erred by not properly examining the Appellant to determine that he understood his constitutional rights in a criminal proceeding at the time of Appellant's entry of a plea of No Contest to the charge of First Degree Murder, 5) Appellant's trial counsel was ineffective in his performance in representing the Appellant by not taking steps to assure that the Appellant fully and completely understood the proceedings wherein Appellant entered a plea of No Contest to First Degree Murder, 6) the district court erred by finding Appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of First Degree Murder after his plea of No Contest to that charge when he did not enter that plea freely, intelligently, voluntarily, and understandingly, and 7) the district court erred by not appointing an interpreter for the Appellant when it was clear he did not understand the proceedings during the plea hearing'