Opinion ID: 2036582
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Standard of Trial Court in Ruling on Motion to Withdraw Plea Prior to Sentencing

Text: In connection with our evaluation of Carlson's claim that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to withdraw his plea, Carlson observes that there is an inconsistency in the case law as to the standard which a trial court should follow when ruling on a motion to withdraw a plea prior to sentencing. We address this observation as a preliminary matter. We recently noted the correct standard in Nebraska for a trial court's disposition of a defendant's request to withdraw a plea before sentencing as follows: After the entry of a plea of guilty or no contest, but before sentencing, a court, in its discretion, may allow a defendant to withdraw his or her plea for any fair and just reason, provided that the prosecution has not been or would not be substantially prejudiced by its reliance on the plea entered. State v. Wetherell, supra . This is the correct standard which the trial courts in Nebraska are to apply. We note that the standard in Nebraska differs from that suggested by the American Bar Association (ABA). The ABA has formulated the following standard: After entry of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere and before sentence, the court should allow the defendant to withdraw the plea for any fair and just reason. In determining whether a fair and just reason exists, the court should also weigh any prejudice to the prosecution caused by reliance on the defendant's plea. (Emphasis supplied.) ABA Standards for Criminal Justice 14 2.1(a) (3d ed.1999). This court, in State v. Minshall, 227 Neb. 210, 214, 416 N.W.2d 585, 588 (1987), specifically disapproved any statements, heretofore appearing in opinions of this court, that any form of the ABA standards governs disposition of a defendant's request to withdraw a plea before sentencing. The court in Minshall went on to state that the correct standard in Nebraska contains the in its discretion, may language rather than the should language of the ABA standard. Id. We note that at times subsequent to the release of Minshall, opinions of the appellate courts of this state have incorrectly recited the standard using the should language in place of the may language. See, e.g., State v. Spahnle, 238 Neb. 265, 469 N.W.2d 780 (1991); State v. James, 6 Neb. App. 444, 573 N.W.2d 816 (1998). To the extent such cases state a standard different from the correct standard enunciated in Minshall and repeated by this court recently in State v. Wetherell, 259 Neb. 341, 609 N.W.2d 672 (2000), they are hereby disapproved. In the instant case, the district court stated the correct standard in its consideration of Carlson's motion to withdraw his plea. The district court's denial of Carlson's motion to withdraw his plea will be disturbed on appeal only if we conclude that the district court abused its discretion in determining that Carlson had not presented a fair and just reason to allow him to withdraw his plea. In this regard, we note that the burden is upon the defendant to establish by clear and convincing evidence the grounds for withdrawal of a plea. State v. Wetherell, supra .