Opinion ID: 1704720
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: paulette

Text: On appeal, Paulette argues the district court erred in not granting her motion to withdraw her guilty plea. She bases this contention on three factors: (1) that the sentencing court failed to inform her of the possibility of being deported, (2) that her attorneys failed to inform her of possible conflicts of interest that might arise due to joint representation, and (3) that her attorneys also failed to inform her of the possibility of being deported. She argues the result was a manifest injustice. The court shall allow the defendant to withdraw a plea of guilty whenever the defendant, upon a timely motion for withdrawal, proves that withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice. N.D.R.Crim.P. Rule 32(d)(1); e.g., State v. Trieb, 516 N.W.2d 287 (N.D.1994). Withdrawal motions are timely if made with due diligence considering the nature of the allegations being made. [2] Rule 32(d)(2). The determination of whether or not there has been a manifest injustice supporting withdrawal of a guilty plea lies within the trial court's discretion and will not be reversed on appeal except for an abuse of discretion. Trieb, 516 N.W.2d at 290 (quoting State v. Zeno, 490 N.W.2d 711, 713 (N.D.1992)). An abuse of discretion occurs under this rule when the court's legal discretion is not exercised in the interest of justice. E.g., Trieb, 516 N.W.2d at 290-91. In this case, such an abuse has not occurred.