Opinion ID: 854095
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Standards of Review for Withdrawal of Pleas

Text: Where a defendant pleads guilty under an agreement with the State, the Indiana Code provides standards governing requests to withdraw: After entry of a plea of guilty, or guilty but mentally ill at the time of the crime, but before the imposition of sentence, the court may allow the defendant by motion to withdraw his plea of guilty ... for any fair and just reason unless the state has been substantially prejudiced by reliance upon the defendant's plea.... The ruling of the court on the motion shall be reviewable on appeal only for an abuse of discretion. [5] However, the court shall allow the defendant to withdraw his plea ... whenever the defendant proves that withdrawal of the plea is necessary to correct a manifest injustice. Ind.Code Ann. § 35-35-1-4(b) (West 1998). We have interpreted this statute to require a trial court to grant such a request: only if the defendant proves that withdrawal of the plea is necessary to correct a manifest injustice. The court must deny a motion to withdraw a guilty plea if the withdrawal would result in substantial prejudice to the State. Except under these polar circumstances, disposition of the petition is at the discretion of the trial court. Manifest injustice and substantial prejudice are necessarily imprecise standards, and an appellant seeking to overturn a trial court's decision has faced a high hurdle under the current statute and its predecessors. The trial court's ruling on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea arrives in this Court with a presumption in favor of the ruling. Coomer v. State, 652 N.E.2d 60, 61-62 (Ind. 1995) (citations omitted). On its face, section 35-35-1-4(b) does not apply to sentencing agreements tendered after a jury has found a defendant guilty. Nevertheless, the standards imbedded in the statute seem appropriate for the situation. The primary objectivesjustice and judicial economyare at work in both instances. Therefore, trial court rulings on motions to withdraw plea and sentencing agreements arrive in this Court with the same presumption of validity, and will be reviewed only for an abuse of discretion. As we previously stated, abuse of discretion will only be found as to plea and sentencing agreements when the failure of the trial court to grant the motion would result in either a manifest injustice to the defendant [6] or in substantial prejudice to the State. An appellant of an adverse decision on a motion to withdraw must prove the court abused its discretion by a preponderance of the evidence. Ind.Code Ann. § 35-35-1-4(e) (West 1998). In evaluating a defendant's arguments on this point, [w]e will not disturb the trial court's ruling where it was based on conflicting evidence. Smith v. State, 596 N.E.2d 257, 258 (Ind.Ct.App.1992).