It Had To Be You (2000)

This cause involves an appeal, which is automatic, from a judgment including a sentence of death against Tauno Waidla. [1] (See fn. 1.) A separate cause involves a similar appeal from a similar judgment against Peter Sakarias. (People v. Sakarias (2000) 22 Cal. 4th 596 [94 Cal. Rptr. 2d 17, 995 P.2d 152].) fn. 1

It Had to Be You (2000)

[Note 2] We said in Correa, supra, "There must be an explanation by the judge or defense counsel of the elements of the crimes charged or an admission by the defendant to the facts constituting those crimes. . . . This requirement can he satisfied in one of several ways: (1) by the judge explaining to the defendant the elements of the crime; (2) by counsel's representation that she has explained to the defendant the elements he admits by his plea; or, (3) by the defendant's stated admission to facts recited during the colloquy which constitute the unexplained elements." 43 Mass. App. Ct. at 717. (Citations omitted.) See Commonwealth v. Carter, 396 Mass. 234 , 236 (1985); Commonwealth v. Robbins, 431 Mass. 442 , 450-452 (2000).

In contrast to Correa, it has been held that a judge's omission to advise under G. L. c. 278, s. 29D, about the possible effect of pleading guilty upon the person's immigration status is not, without more, a ground for withdrawing the plea. See par. 2 of s. 291); Commonwealth v. Lopez, 426 Mass. 657 , 659 n.2 (1998), quoting from Commonwealth v. Mahadeo, 397 Mass. 314 , 315 n.1 (1986) ("judgment will only be vacated, pursuant to . . . s. 29D, '[i]f the Court fails to . . . advise the defendant [regarding immigration consequences] and he later at any time shows that his plea and conviction may have one of the enumerated consequences . . .' " [emphasis supplied]); Commonwealth v. Rzepphiewski, 431 Mass. 48 , 49-50 (2000) (same). 041b061a72