Opinion ID: 2630992
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: LAW Withdrawal of Plea

Text: [¶9] Rule 32(d), W.R.Cr.P., states that after a criminal defendant who pleads nolo contendere is sentenced, such plea may be set aside only to correct manifest injustice. `Manifest injustice' contemplates a `situation that is unmistakable or indisputable, was not foreseeable, and affects the substantial rights of a party.' Deloge v. State, 2005 WY 152, ¶ 16, 123 P.3d 573, 578 (Wyo. 2005) (quoting McCarthy v. State, 945 P.2d 775, 776 (Wyo. 1997)). It is, in part, intended to address `a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice or an omission inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of fair procedure.' Deloge, ¶ 16, 123 P.3d at 578 (quoting United States v. Blackwell, 127 F.3d 947, 956 (10th Cir. 1997)). [¶10] The district court has discretion in deciding whether or not manifest injustice exists. Deloge, ¶ 16, 123 P.3d at 579. Although W.R.Cr.P. 32(d) does not specify that a district court must hold a hearing on a motion to withdraw a nolo contendere plea in exercising its discretion, this Court has adopted a two-part test formerly used by the federal courts to assist in determining whether or not to allow the withdrawal of a plea after sentencing: [I]f the defendant alleges facts which, if true, would entitle him to relief, the trial court must hold a hearing. To prevent a possible deluge of unnecessary court proceedings, the second element of the test allows a trial court to deny a hearing if the defendant's allegations are contradicted by the record, are inherently unreliable, or are merely conclusions rather than statements of fact. Coleman v. State, 843 P.2d 558, 559-60 (Wyo. 1992) (internal citations and footnote omitted). We have also recognized that [i]f the defendant offers no plausible reason for withdrawal, the trial court has discretion to deny the motion without a hearing. Brock v. State, 981 P.2d 465, 468 (Wyo. 1999). Valle v. State, 2006 WY 43, ¶ 7, 132 P.3d 181, 184 (Wyo. 2006). [¶11] Ultimately, the decision of the district court regarding a motion to withdraw the plea will not be reversed [by this Court] for an abuse of discretion so long as the district court reasonably could conclude as it did. Deloge, ¶ 16, 123 P.3d at 579 (quoting Nixon v. State, 4 P.3d 864, 869 (Wyo. 2000)). Additionally, this Court may affirm the district court's decision on any legal ground appearing in the record. Deloge, ¶ 17, 123 P.3d at 579 (citing Lacey v. State, 2003 WY 148, ¶ 10, 79 P.3d 493, 495 (Wyo. 2003)).