Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Oliver Ray Carbutt v. Colorado
Paid petition · Court of Appeals of Colorado, No. 16CA1250 · judgment December 27, 2018
Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.
Question presented
I. When a court is in the process of accepting a guilty plea for a sex offense that will require an intrusive presentence investigation including questions about uncharged sexual misconduct, is the court required to affirmatively advise the defendant that he has a privilege against self-incrimination during the presentence investigation? And, if so, II. Did the Colorado courts violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by refusing to vacate Oliver Carbutt’s guilty plea? III. Does Carbutt’s conviction violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because his plea was not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary, because he was misadvised about the maximum and minimum penalties?
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Joseph Saint-Veltri
Joseph Saint-Veltri, Attorney at Law
For respondent
L. Andrew Cooper
Office of the Colorado Attorney General
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference
Proceedings
- Jan 21 2020Petition DENIED.
- Dec 30 2019DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/17/2020.
- Dec 17 2019Waiver of right of respondent Colorado to respond filed.
- Dec 09 2019Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 10, 2020)