Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): with Rule 11 (c) (1) as to each individual charge for which a plea of guilty is offered.” (Emphasis added.) Additionally, a review of other states with rules of practice similar to § 39-19 reveals that they also require the court, when accepting pleas of guilty or nolo contendere, to ensure that the defendant understands the nature of each charge and the maximum penalty associated therewith, in addition to the maximum possible consecutive sentence when there are multiple charges. These states also consider this information to be mandatory, and, when the failure to inform on each of these direct consequences is raised via a motion to withdraw a plea before the trial court imposes sentencing, the withdrawal must be permitted. See, e.g., Wells v. State, 396 A.2d 161, 162 (Del. 1978) (<HOLDING>); People v. Flannigan, 131 Ill. App. 2d 1059, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that conspiracy to commit a particular substantive offense cannot exist without at least the degree of criminal intent necessary for the substantive offense itself internal quotation marks omitted (B) holding statutory maximum for prior conviction is the potential maximum sentence defined by the applicable state criminal statute not the maximum sentence which could have been imposed against the particular defendant  according to the states sentencing guidelines (C) holding that to determine whether a north carolina conviction for a crime is punishable by a prison term exceeding one year a court is to consider the maximum aggravated sentence that could be imposed for that crime upon a defendant with the worst possible criminal history internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted (D) recognizing district courts broad discretion to impose prison term up to the statutory maximum for violations of supervised release internal quotation marks omitted (E) holding that the maximum possible sentence provided by law for conviction of the offense charged is the most important consequence of the plea internal quotation marks omitted
Output (English): holding that conspiracy to commit a particular substantive offense cannot exist without at least the degree of criminal intent necessary for the substantive offense itself internal quotation marks omitted