In In re J.M., 172 Vt. 61, 769 A.2d 656 (2001), the complete lack of a Rule 11 colloquy was raised on direct appeal. The Court vacated the plea as plain error because the court did not inquire of J.M. whether he understood the charges against him, understood the penalties provided by law, understood he was waiving important constitutional rights, and if his plea was knowing and voluntary. "The brief exchange that took place was between the court and the attorneys, and this exchange was more to ensure that the paperwork was filled out properly than to fulfill the requirements of Rule 11 . . . . As a result, we must vacate J.M.'s admission." Id. at 63, 769 A.2d at 658-59.