State v. Roberts — concurring

Summary

The concurring opinion agrees that the defendant's guilty-plea canvass was constitutionally sufficient under existing doctrine, but only barely, and therefore agrees with affirming the judgment. It criticizes the prevailing approach for allowing appellate courts to infer knowing and intelligent waivers from vague references and incomplete colloquies, rather than requiring trial judges to personally address each fundamental right. The concurrence urges trial courts to use the governing plea rule as a mandatory checklist, while acknowledging that the defendant did not raise a separate claim under that rule.