Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the 1 public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch’s homepage at 2 http://www.courts.state.co.us

. Opinions are also posted on the 3 Colorado Bar Association ’s homepage at http://www.cobar.org

. 4 5 ADVANCE SHEET HEADNOTE 6 June 5, 2017 7 8 2017 CO 62 9 10 No. 15 S C511 , Zafiro
- Guillen v. People
— Crimin al Law
— Withdrawal of Guilty Plea
— 11 Crim. P. 32(d)
— Guilty Pleas
— Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
— Deferred 12 Judgment
. 13 14 Edgar Zafiro

- Guillen pled guilty to possession of one gram or less of a schedule 15 II controlled substance in exchange for a two

- year deferred judgm ent. In 2009, upon 16
successful completion of the terms of the deferred judgment, the district court withdrew 17
Zafiro

- Guillen’s guilty plea and dismissed the case with prejudice. In 2013, Zafiro

18 Guillen filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea pursuant to Crim. P. 32(d)

. The 19 district court denied the motion, holding it lacked jurisdiction. The court of appeals 20 affirmed. For the reasons discussed in the lead companion case, 21 People v. Corrales

- Castro , 2017 CO 60 , ___ P.3d ___, also announced to day, the supreme 22 court holds that the plain terms of Rule 32(d) require a plea to exist in order for it to be 23 withdrawn. Therefore, Crim. P. 32(d) does not authorize withdrawal of Zafiro

24 Guillen’s plea. Accordingly, the supreme court affirms the court of appeals. 251 The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado 2 2 East 14 th Avenue • Denver, Colorado 8020 3 3
20 17 CO 62 4 Supreme Court Case No. 15 S C511 5 Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals 6 Court of Appeals Case No. 14CA534 7 Petitioner : 8 Edgar Zafiro

- Guillen , 9

v. 10 Respondent : 11 The People of the State of Colorado

. 12 Judgment Affirmed 13 en banc 14 June 5, 2017 15 16 Attorney for Petitioner : 17 Ferdinand L. Torres 18 Denver, Colorado 19 20 Attorneys for Respondent : 21 Cynthia H. Coffman, Attorney General 22 William G. Kozeliski, Assistant Attorney General 23 Denver, Colorado 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 JUSTICE EID delivered the Opinion of the Cou rt. 36 JUSTICE GABRIEL does not participat e
. 372

¶1 Petitioner Edgar Zafiro

- Guillen pled guilty to possession of one gram or less of a schedule II controlled substance in exchange for a two

- year deferred judgment. In 2009,
up on successful completion of the conditions of the deferred judgment, his plea was
withdrawn and the case was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to section 18

- 1.3

- 102(2), C.R.S. (2016).
¶2 In 2013, Zafiro

- Guillen filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea pursuant to Crim. P. 32(d) , alleging ineffective assistance of counsel

. The district court denied the motion, holding it lacked juris diction. The court of appeals affirmed. People v. Zafiro

- Guillen , No. 14CA534, slip op. at 1

– 5 (Colo. App. Mar. 19, 2015)

. ¶3 We granted Zafiro

- Guillen’s petition for certiorari and now affirm . For the

reasons more fully articulated in People v

. Corrales

- Castro , 2017 CO 60 , ___ P.3d ___, the lead case we decide today, 1 we conclude that the plain language of Crim. P. 32(d) requires that a “plea” exist in order for it to be “withdraw [ n ] .” Therefore, there is nothing in the Rule that would authorize a district court to withdraw an already

withdrawn plea. Because Zafiro

- Guillen’s plea had already been withdrawn and the case dismissed with prejudice pursuant to section 18

- 1.3

- 102(2), there wa s no plea to be withdrawn pursuant to Rule 32(d). Accordingly, we affirm the court of appeals.


### I
. ¶4 In April 2007, Zafiro

- Guillen pled guilty to possession of one gram or less of a schedule II controlled substance in exchange for a two

- year deferred judgme nt. In

1 In addition to Corrales

- Castro , we also decide the companion cases of Espino

- Paez v. People , 2017 CO 61 , ___ P.3d ___; Flores

- Heredia v. People , 2017 CO 64 , ___ P.3d ___; and People v. Roman , 2017 CO 63 , ___ P.3d ___.3

April 2009, upon successful completion of the terms of the deferred judgment, the
district court withdrew Zafiro

- Guillen’s guilty plea and dismissed the case with prejudice.
¶5 I n 2013, Zafiro

- Guillen filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea pursuan t to Crim. P. 32(d), alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied his motion, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction because Zafiro

- Guillen’s plea had already
been withdrawn and his case had been dismissed with prejudice

. The cou rt of appeals
affirmed. Zafiro

- Guillen , slip op. at 1. We granted certiorari and now affirm. 2
II.
¶6 For the reasons more fully articulated in the lead case People v. Corrales

- Castro ,

we conclude Rule 32(d) does not authorize withdrawal of an already

- withdrawn plea. Accordingly, we affirm the court of appeals. JUSTICE GABRIEL does not participat e.

2 We granted certiorari to review the following issue: “Whether the court should allow withdrawal of the guilty plea entered by the petitioner, who successfully complete d the terms and conditions of a deferred judgment, under Crim. P. 32(d) when it was entered as a res ult of ineffective assistance of counsel. ”