Rule 11. Pleas; Special Circumstances as to Acceptance of Certain Pleas; Notice to Noncitizens of Potential Adverse Immigration Consequences of a Plea

(a) Pleas for any Crime.

(1) In General . A defendant may plead not guilty, not criminally responsible by reason of insanity, guilty, or nolo contendere. A defendant may plead both not guilty and not criminally responsible by reason of insanity to the same charge. The court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty or nolo contendere. If a defendant refuses to plead, or if the court refuses to accept a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the court shall enter a plea of not guilty.

(2) Conditional Plea. With the approval of the court and the consent of the attorney for the State, a defendant may enter a conditional plea of guilty or nolo contendere. A conditional plea shall be in writing. It shall specifically state any pretrial motion and the ruling thereon to be preserved for appellate review. If the court approves and the attorney for the State consents to entry of the conditional plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the parties shall file a written certification that the record is adequate for appellate review and that the case is not appropriate for application of the harmless error doctrine. Appellate review of any specified ruling shall not be barred by the entry of the conditional plea. If the defendant prevails on appeal, the defendant shall be allowed to withdraw the plea.

(b) Prerequisites to Accepting a Plea of Guilty or Nolo Contendere to a Class C or Higher Crime. In all proceedings in which the crime charged is murder or a Class A, Class B, or Class C crime, before accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the court shall ensure

(1) That the plea is made with knowledge of the matters set forth in subdivision (c); and

(2) That the plea is voluntary within the meaning of subdivision (d); and

(3) That there is a factual basis for the charge, as provided in subdivision

(e) ; and

(4) That an unrepresented defendant has knowingly and intelligently waived the defendant's right to counsel.

(c) Ensuring That the Plea Is Made Knowingly. Before accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere in a case involving a Class C or higher crime, the court shall address the defendant personally in open court and inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant understands, the following:

(1) The elements of the crime charged, the maximum possible sentence and any mandatory minimum sentence; and

(2) That by pleading guilty or nolo contendere the defendant is giving up the right to a trial, at which the defendant would have the following rights:

(A) The right to be considered innocent until proven guilty by the State beyond a reasonable doubt; and

(B) The right to a speedy and public trial by the court or by a jury; and

(C) The right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against the defendant; and

(D) The right to present witnesses on the defendant's behalf and the right to either be or decline to be a witness on the defendant's behalf.

(d) Ensuring That the Plea Is Voluntary. Before accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere in a case involving a Class C or higher crime, the court shall determine that the plea is the product of the defendant's free choice and not the result of force, threats, or promises other than those in connection with a plea agreement. The court shall make this determination by addressing the defendant personally in open court. The court shall inquire as to the existence and terms of a plea agreement, as provided in Rule 11A.

(e) Ensuring That There Is a Factual Basis for the Plea. Before accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere in a case involving a Class C or higher crime, the court shall make such inquiry of the attorney for the State as shall satisfy it that the State has a factual basis for the charge.

(f) Acceptance of a Plea of Guilty to a Class C or Higher Crime Before Indictment. A defendant who, before indictment, desires to enter a plea of guilty to a charge of a Class A, B, or C crime may in open court waive the defendant's right to indictment by a grand jury as provided in Rule 7(b). If the court refuses to accept the plea or the defendant, after waiving indictment in open court, declines to plead guilty or if a plea of guilty is set aside, the waiver shall be considered withdrawn and the case shall proceed in accordance with these Rules as if no waiver had been made.

(g) Prerequisites to Accepting a Plea of Guilty or Nolo Contendere to a Class D or Class E Crime From an Unrepresented Defendant. Before accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to a Class D or Class E crime from a defendant who is not represented by retained or appointed counsel or a lawyer for the day, other than as provided in subdivision (j), the court shall address the defendant personally in open court and make such inquiry as to ensure that the plea is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.

(h) Potential Adverse Immigration Consequences to Noncitizens of the Plea to Any Crime. Before accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere for any crime, the court shall inquire whether the defendant was born in the United States. If, based on the defendant's answer, it appears that the defendant is not a United States citizen, the court shall ascertain from defense counsel whether the defendant has been advised of the risk under federal law of adverse immigration consequences, including deportation, as a result of the plea. If no such advice has been provided, or if the defendant is unrepresented, the court shall notify the defendant that the plea can create a risk of adverse immigration consequences, including deportation, and may continue the proceeding in order for counsel to provide the required advice or, in the case of an unrepresented defendant, for investigation and consideration of the consequences by the defendant. The court is not required or expected to inform the defendant of the nature of any adverse immigration consequences.

(i) Transfer for Plea and Sentence. The defendant may, in writing, if a criminal charge is currently pending in a court, request permission to plead guilty or nolo contendere to any other crime the defendant has committed in the state, subject to the written approval of the attorneys for the State, if more than one. Upon receipt of the defendant's written statement and of the written approval of the attorneys for the State, the clerk of the Unified Criminal Docket in which a complaint, an indictment or an information is pending shall transmit the papers in the proceeding to the clerk of courts where the defendant is currently being held, and the prosecution shall continue in that court. The defendant's plea of guilty or nolo contendere constitutes a waiver of venue. The court receiving a case transferred for plea and sentence shall issue an order that either requires the case to remain in the sentencing court or requires the case to be returned to the originating court.

(j) Acceptance of Guilty Plea by the Clerk to a Charge Punishable by a Fine. At the signed request of the defendant, the clerk of the Unified Criminal Docket may accept a guilty plea upon payment of a fine as set by the court in the particular case, or as set by the court in accordance with a schedule of fines established by the court with the approval of the Chief Judge of the District Court for various categories of such crimes. Acceptance of a plea by the clerk shall be conditioned upon the defendant signing a form acknowledging that the defendant has read and understands the form and understands that, by entering the plea of guilty, the defendant is giving up all of the rights listed on the form, and that the plea will result in a criminal conviction, the punishment for which is the fine paid by the defendant.

Committee Notes

Committee Advisory Note [December 2014] The Rule parallels the content of Rule 11 of the Maine Rules of Criminal Procedure but differs in the following respects. First, in subdivisions (a)(2), (e), and (i) the letter "s" in the word "state" is capitalized because the word is referring to the "State" as a governmental actor or a party. Second, in the heading to subdivision (f) and in its substance the word "before" replaces the phrase "prior to" to reflect modern usage. Third, in subdivisions (i) and (j) references to "the clerk of the court" are replaced by "the clerk of the Unified Criminal Docket." Fourth, in subdivision (i), the words "where the defendant is currently being held" replace the words "for the court in which the defendant is held" to enhance clarity.

[Advisory Notes to former Maine Rules of Criminal Procedure]

Advisory Committee Note—1976 [M.R. Crim. P. 11(b).] This rule will formalize the current practice in the Superior Court and assure that any negotiated pleas are a matter of record. The text of the rule is based upon the provisions of the corresponding Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure.

Advisory Committee Note—1976 [M.R. Crim. P. 11(a).] This amendment accommodates the abolition of the felony misdemeanor distinction in the new Criminal Code, Title 17-A of the Maine Revised Statutes. It requires the detailed Rule 11 inquiry only in cases in which the offense charged is infamous, corresponding to the prior rule requiring the inquiry only in felony cases.

Advisory Committee Note—1980 [M.R. Crim. P. 11.] The redraft of Rule 11 has three purposes: (1) To bring the rule into greater conformity with the governing case law, especially with respect to amplifying what the defendant must know as a prerequisite to a valid plea; (2) To adopt some of the better practices incorporated in F.R. Crim. P. 11; and (3) To dissolve an ambiguity as to what kind of plea agreements must be "accepted" or "rejected" by the judge. Subdivision (a) Subdivision (a) is derived from present Rule 11(a). Subdivision (b) Subdivision (b) serves as a roadmap of the remainder of the rule. The exception for Class D and Class E crimes carries forward the provision of present Rule 11(a). Subdivision (c) Subdivision (c) expands and simplifies the concepts which are presently compressed into the language "voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge" in present Rule 11(a). Case law requires that the court determine that the defendant understands more than the nature of the charge: principally, that the defendant understands what rights he is relinquishing and the maximum permissible sentence. The requirement of explanation of the "elements" of the crime charged rather than its "nature" appears better practice after Henderson v. Morgan , 426 U.S. 637, 96 S. Ct. 2253, 49 L. Ed. 2d 108 (1976). Subdivision (c)(2) is derived from F.R. Crim. P. 11(c)(2)-(4) and Rule 444(b)(1) of the Uniform Rules of Criminal Procedure. Advising the defendant of at least some of the rights he is relinquishing is constitutionally required. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S. Ct. 1709, 23 L. Ed. 2d 274 (1969). Subdivision (d) Subdivision (d) is derived from Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d). "Voluntary" is used here not in the all-encompassing constitutional sense employed in cases like Henderson v. Morgan , 426 U.S. 637 (1976), but in the narrower sense employed in Federal Rule 11(d). The term "free choice" is lifted from North Carolina v. Alford , 400 U.S. 25, 3191 S. Ct. 160, 164, 27 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1970) and Davis v. State , 106 A2d 127, 133 (Me. 1973). Subdivision (e) Subdivision (e) attempts to clarify what types of plea agreements must be accepted or rejected by the court and what types require no court acceptance or rejection. Four types of plea agreements are discerned. Type A((e)(1)(A)) no longer requires court acceptance or rejection, due to the contemporaneous amendment of Rule 48(a), dispensing with court approval of dismissals. Type B((e)(1)(B)) requites no court acceptance or rejection because the agreement is fulfilled by the silence of the attorney for the state. Types C and D clarify and continue the requirement of court acceptance or rejection of a recommended disposition, consistent with the rationale of Shorette v. State , 402 A.2d 450 (Me. 1979). Subdivision (e)(1) incorporates the guideline that a judge shall not participate in the negotiation of the specific terms of the plea agreement. This provision is derived from Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(e)(1). Subdivision (e)(4) gives the court authority to enforce a plea agreement or permit withdrawal of the plea if the attorney for the state fails to comply with a plea agreement. Subdivision (e)(5) replaces the provision making withdrawn pleas inadmissible in evidence (present (b)(4)) with a cross reference to M.R. Evid. 410 and continues the prohibition of admissibility of pleas of nolo contendere presently contained in Rule 11(b)(4). Subdivision (f) Subdivision (f) is intended to make clear that the court must make such inquiry of the attorney for the state as shall satisfy it that the state has a factual basis for the charge, but that it need not (although it may) make inquiry of the defendant himself. This is the teaching of Morgan v. State , 287 A.2d 592, 60506 (Me. 1972); and Clewley v. State , 288 A.2d 468, 471 (Me. 1972).

Advisory Committee Note—1984 [M.R. Crim. P. 11(e)(3).] Although the court has discretion to follow, or to decline to follow, a recommended disposition, it typically has little information upon which to exercise that discretion. The amendment would require the parties to set forth on the record the reasons for the recommended disposition (for example, there may be problems of proof which lead the parties to compromise on sentence), thereby enabling the court to exercise informed discretion. This would also enable the court to satisfy the requirement in the contemporaneous amendment of Rule 32(a) that the court state its reasons if a sentence of imprisonment of one year or more is imposed.

Advisory Committee Note—1985 [M.R. Crim. P. 11(a).] The proposed Rule 11(a)(2) follows the new federal rule 11(a)(2), which was added effective August l, 1983. The rationale of a conditional guilty plea was stated in the federal

advisory committee note: [A] defendant who has lost one or more pretrial motions will often go through an entire trial simply to preserve the pretrial issues for later appellate review. This results in a waste of prosecutorial and judicial resources, and causes delay in the trial of other cases. . . . The Supreme Court has characterized the New York practice, whereby appeals from suppression motions may be appealed notwithstanding a guilty plea, as a "commendable effort to relieve the problem of congested trial calendars in a manner that does not diminish the opportunity for the assertion of rights guaranteed by the Constitution." Lefkowitz v. Newsome , 420 U.S. 283, 293 (1975). . . . As the federal note states, the concept has found favor in standard works on criminal procedure: The development of procedures to avoid the necessity for trials which are undertaken for the sole purpose of preserving pretrial objections has been consistently favored by the commentators. See ABA Standards Relating to the Administration of Criminal Justice, standard 21-1.3(c) (2d ed. 1978); Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure §§ 290.1(4)(b) (1975); Uniform Rules of Criminal Procedure, rule 444(d) (Approved Draft, 1974); 1 C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure—Criminal § 175 (1969); 3 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 11. l (1978). While the conditional guilty plea would conserve trial resources, it would not unnecessarily burden appellate resources. A plea will be entered only if the defendant and defense counsel are satisfied that the chances of obtaining a not guilty verdict at trial are unacceptably slim and only if the attorney for the state and the court conclude: (1) That the record is adequate for appellate review; (2) That the case is not one appropriate for invocation of the harmless error doctrine; and (3) That the plea is not entered for purposes of delay. The requirements of court approval and prosecutorial consent are derived from the federal rule and are extensively discussed in the federal note. It is contemplated that the principal use of this procedure would be with respect to evidentiary motions such as motions to suppress or motions in limine.

Advisory Committee Note—1987 [M.R. Crim. P 11(a)(1).] This amendment to subparagraph (1) is needed to bring it into conformity with P L. 1985, ch. 796, § 6 (effective July 16, 1986). [M.R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2).] In proposing the conditional guilty plea procedure set forth in Rule 11(a)(2), the Advisory Committee followed the language and rationale of the federal version of Rule 11(a)(2). The rationale of the requirement of court approval and prosecutorial consent was extensively discussed in the federal advisory committee note: The obvious advantages of the conditional plea procedure authorized by subdivision (a)(2) are not outweighed by any significant or compelling disadvantages. . . . * * * [Inadequate Record] The claim that the lack of a full trial record precludes effective appellate review may on occasion be relevant. . . . However, most of the objections which would likely be raised by pretrial motion and preserved for appellate review by a conditional plea are subject to appellate resolution without a trial record. Certainly this is true as to the very common motion to suppress evidence, as is indicated by the fact that appellate courts presently decide such issues upon interlocutory appeal by the government. [Harmless Error] With respect to the objection that conditional pleas circumvent application of the harmless error doctrine. . . . the harmless error standard with respect to constitutional objections is sufficiently high, see Chapman v. California , 386 U.S. 18 [87 S. Ct. 824, 17 L. Ed. 2d 705] (1967), that relatively few appellate decisions result in affirmance upon that basis. Thus it will only rarely be true that the conditional plea device will cause an appellate court to consider constitutional questions which could otherwise have been avoided by invocation of the doctrine of harmless error. [Requirement of Court Approval and Prosecutorial Consent] To the extent that these or related objections would otherwise have some substance, they are overcome by the provision in Rule 11(a)(2) that the defendant may enter a conditional plea only "with the approval of the court and the consent of the government.". . . . The requirement of approval by the court is most appropriate, as it ensures, for example, that the defendant is not allowed to take an appeal on a matter which can only be fully developed by proceeding to trial. . . . As for consent by the government, it will ensure that conditional pleas will be allowed only when the decision of the court of appeals will dispose of the case either by allowing the plea to stand or by such action as compelling dismissal of the indictment or suppressing essential evidence. Absent such circumstances, the conditional plea might only serve to postpone the trial and require the government to try the case after substantial delay, during which time witnesses may be lost, memories dimmed, and the offense grown so stale as to lose jury appeal. The government is in a unique position to determine whether the matter at issue would be case-dispositive, and, as a party to the litigation, should have an absolute right to refuse to consent to potentially prejudicial delay. . . . Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2) advisory committee note to 1983 amend., 91 F.R.D. 289, 323 (1982). Thus, both the federal and Maine provisions required court approval and prosecutorial consent to assure adequacy of the record, issue substantiality and acceptable timing. However, neither provision required the court or the prosecutor to file a written certification as to any of these points. In State v. Cyr , 501 A.2d 1303, 1305 (Me. 1985), the Law Court said of the Maine provision: The rule is designed to conserve prosecutorial and court resources without creating an undue burden on the appellate process. In that regard, we require that both the prosecution and the trial court certify that the record is adequate for appellate review, that the case is not appropriate for application of the harmless error doctrine, and that the plea was not entered to delay the proceedings. Following Cyr it is clear that Rule 11(a)(2) should be amended to explicitly require written certification of record adequacy and issue substantiality. It is not clear that anyone need explicitly certify as to no-delay purpose. If anyone is in a position to explicitly certify as to the purpose of the defendant's appeal, it is the defense. By giving their approval and consent, the court and the prosecutor implicitly certify as to the defendant's no-delay purpose. Such implicit certification should be enough to guard against frivolous appeals and certainly satisfies the rationale of the rule. See Federal Advisory

Committee Note, supra.

Advisory Committee Note—1988 [M.R. Crim. P. 11(a)(1).] The amendment consolidates the language of several paragraphs of the rule for purposes of clarity.

Advisory Committee Note—1989 [M.R. Crim. P. 11.] Present Rule 11 has become cumbersome as it tries to deal with pleas, prerequisites to accepting pleas and plea agreements. New Rule 11A has been created to deal with plea agreements, containing provisions previously contained in Rules 11(e) and (g). New Rule 11 carries forward the provisions dealing with pleas (former subdivision (a)) and prerequisites to accepting pleas (former subdivisions (b), (c), (d) and (f)). New subdivision (f) carries forward the provisions of former Rule 11A in authorizing the District Court to accept a plea of guilty to a charge of a Class C or higher crime. New subdivision (g) carries forward the provisions of Rule 20 in authorizing a plea of guilty to one or more additional charges. New Rule 11A carries forward the provisions of former Rules 11(e) and (g). The requirements of disclosure of a plea agreement to the court and of a statement of reasons for certain plea agreements continue to be applicable as before. Thus in the case of a plea of guilty to a Class D or Class E crime, the District Court need not require notice of a plea agreement on the record in open court. New subdivision (h) is added to insure that an adequate record is made in the case of a negotiated plea of not criminally responsible by reason of insanity.

Advisory Committee Note—1990 [M.R. Crim. P. 11(a)(3).] Rule 11(a)(3) contains the language of former District Court Criminal Rule 10. This addition restores to the rules the authority of a District Court clerk to accept a guilty plea without an appearance by a defendant when a fine has been set in a specific case by a District Court judge or a schedule of fines has been approved by the Chief Judge of the District Court. No conflict with 4 M.R.S. § 164 is anticipated.

Advisory Committee Note—1996 [M.R. Crim. P. 11(a)(1).] The amendment eliminates the current requirement that a court enter a plea of not guilty in the event a defendant corporation fails to appear for arraignment. As a practical matter, a corporation that fails to appear for arraignment through counsel (M.R. Crim. P. 43) or otherwise, notwithstanding the existence of a properly served summons, is not likely to appear for trial either. Any response to nonappearance in the corporation context is complicated by the fact that a warrant of arrest cannot be used against a nonindividual and a summons is probably not enforceable by contempt proceedings. 1 Cluchey & Seitzinger, Maine Criminal Practice , § 4.7 at II-22 and II-23 (1992). Although in certain circumstances a court may be able to make use of a remedial administrative remedy—see, e.g., a suspension under 29-A M.R.S. § 2605(1)—the criminal justice process is best served by halting the pre-trial process entirely until further investigation can be made by the prosecution into the reason for the nonappearance at arraignment by a defendant corporation.

Advisory Committee Note—2002 [M.R. Crim. P. 11.] It has become increasingly clear that what may appear to a defendant and defense counsel as an attractive plea agreement may contain a hidden danger of serious immigration consequences for a defendant who is not a United States citizen. In Aldus v. State , 2000 ME 47, 748 A.2d 463, the Law Court held that it may constitute ineffective assistance of counsel for defense counsel, in special circumstances, to fail to explore with the defendant the immigration consequences of a guilty plea. The purpose of the amendment is preventive; it seeks both to prevent an improvident plea and to prevent the burdens of post-conviction review. The amendment builds into the guilty plea proceeding a pause—a "stop-look-andlisten"—to ponder whether there may be serious immigration consequences of the plea. The amendment directs the court to alert defense counsel and unrepresented defendants that they may need to pause to explore hidden, serious immigration consequences of the plea. The purpose of the amendment is not to furnish an additional ground for collateral attack on the plea, and failure to comply with the subdivision is not intended as a ground for collateral attack. The purpose of the amendment is to prevent collateral attack and to promote both fairness and finality.

Advisory Note – 2008 M.R.Crim.P. 11(a)(2). The amendment adds to the current conditional guilty plea, a conditional plea of nolo contendere. The same advantages to the parties and the court system in providing for a conditional guilty plea apply in the context of a nolo contendere plea. The amendment conforms Maine's conditional plea to that of its federal counterpart. See M.R.Fed.P. 11(a)(2). The Law Court recently, while pointing out that the current rule "provides for conditional pleas of guilty only and does not authorize the entry of a conditional plea of nolo contendere," nonetheless addressed the merits of the issues raised in the context of a conditional plea of nolo contendere since "[t]he parties neither raised nor argued this point [the rule's inapplicability]." State v. Dion , 2007 ME 87, ¶ 1, n. 1, 928 A.2d 746, 747. See also State v. Bilynsky , 2007 ME 107, ¶ 3, n. 1, 932 A.2d 1169, 1171 ("The State . . . concedes "that there appears to be no rationale for allowing conditional guilty pleas and disallowing conditional nolo contendere pleas").

Advisory Note – 2009 M.R.Crim.P. 11 the heading (b) and (h). The amendment adds at the end of the current heading to Rule 11 "; NOTICE AS TO POSSIBLE IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES" for purposes of clarity. Further, it amends subdivision (h) in two respects. First, it adds the words "for any crime" in the first sentence to make clear that subdivision (h) applies to both felonies and misdemeanors since a plea to either may trigger immigration consequences. Second, it adds the words "by the defendant" at the end of the final sentence to make clear that the purpose for a trial court granting a continuance of the proceeding is for investigation and consideration by the defendant of any potential immigration consequences of the plea. With subdivision (h) amended to clarify that it applies to pleas to any class of crime, paragraph (5) of subdivision (b) becomes duplicative and is deleted. The sentence emphasizing that the court has no obligation to inform about or predict the nature of any possible immigration consequences of the plea is moved from paragraph (5) to subdivision (h).

Advisory Note – November 2011 Rule 11(h), is modified in light of Padilla v. Kentucky , 559 U.S. __, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010), holding that in the context of a plea by a noncitizen, to meet the Sixth Amendment's effective-assistance-of-counsel guarantee, defense counsel must advise the noncitizen client regarding the risk of deportation. More specifically, when it is "clear" under federal immigration law that the consequence of a particular plea is deportation, defense counsel must advise the noncitizen client of that fact. Id. at 1483. When, instead, the deportation consequences of a particular plea are "unclear or uncertain" under federal immigration law, defense counsel's obligation is satisfied by informing the noncitizen client that the plea "may carry a risk of adverse immigration consequences." Id. Despite these modifications to the subdivision, the court itself has no obligation to inform the noncitizen about or predict the nature of any possible immigration consequences of the plea. See Advisory Note – 2009 to M.R. Crim. P. 11(h).

Advisory Note—July 2012 The amendment makes a number of nonsubstantive changes to Rule 11, all designed to enhance clarity. Specifically, it: (1) makes the following changes to the rule's heading: deletes " ACCEPTANCE OF A PLEA TO A CHARGE OF A CLASS C OR HIGHER CRIME "; adds a new category of " SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES AS TO ACCEPTANCE OF CERTAIN PLEAS " referring to subdivision (a)(3) [redesignated subdivision(j)], (b) to (f), new (g), and (i) [formerly (g)]; and amends the current reference to subdivision (h) to read " NOTICE TO NONCITIZENS OF POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF A PLEA "; (2) adds " for Any Crime " in the heading of subdivision (a); (3) moves the special circumstance regarding acceptance of a plea and fine by the clerk addressed currently in subdivision(a)(3) to a new subdivision designated (j); (4) restates the first sentence in subdivision (b) using a simpler approach; (5) adds the words "knowingly and intelligently" to paragraph (4) of subdivision (b); (6) replaces the word "insuring," or a variant thereof, with the word "ensuring," or a variant thereof, in subdivisions (b), (c), (d), and (e); (7) adds the phrase "in a case involving a Class C or higher crime" to the first sentence of subdivisions (c), (d), and (e); (8) replaces the word "relinquishing" with the words "giving up" in paragraph (2) of subdivision (c); (9) adds the phrase " Prior to Indictment " in the heading of subdivision (f) and the words "by a grand jury" after the word "indictment" in its substance; (10) redesignates current subdivision (g) as subdivision (i); and (11) adds "for any crime" in the first sentence of the new subdivision (i). In addition, the amendment to Rule 11 makes the following three substantive changes. First, former subdivision (a)(3), now subdivision (j), is broadened to allow a clerk to accept pleas and fines under the same circumstances in both trial courts. Further, a new condition to the acceptance by a clerk is added requiring that the defendant file a signed form acknowledging that the defendant has read and understands the form and understands that, by entering the plea of guilty, the defendant is waiving all of his or her rights listed on the form, and that the plea will result in a criminal conviction, the punishment for which is the fine paid by the defendant. Second, a new subdivision (g) has been added to address the prerequisites to a court accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to a Class D or Class E crime from an unrepresented defendant. A lawyer, including a lawyer for the day, may obviate the need for a court to satisfy itself that the plea is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary if the court has expressly been advised that the lawyer has made an appropriate inquiry of the defendant to ensure the plea is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. In many instances, if there is no lawyer representing the defendant, the best practice for the presiding judge will be to have an individual colloquy with the defendant. That colloquy will allow the judge to ensure that the defendant understands the charge and that, by pleading guilty or nolo, the defendant will have a criminal conviction, and understands that she or he is giving up the right to a trial, including a jury trial; the right to be presumed innocent; the right to require the State to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt; and the right to an attorney, including the right to be considered for an appointed attorney. Third, the reference to recording of pleas offered in District Court in the last paragraph of subdivision (f) is deleted, as recording requirements for all criminal cases are comprehensively addressed in Rule 27.