AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant sought to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial, challenging the district court's denial of his oral motion. The plea entered was contingent on the filing of federal charges, which were indeed filed. The Defendant was informed prior to entering his plea that withdrawal was only possible if federal charges were never filed, not if they were filed and later dropped or dismissed.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that he should be allowed to withdraw his plea because it was entered in contemplation of federal proceedings, despite being informed that withdrawal was only possible if federal charges were not filed.
• Appellee (State): Contended that the Defendant was clearly informed of the conditions under which he could withdraw his plea and that those conditions did not include the possibility of withdrawing if federal charges were filed but not pursued.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying the Defendant's motion to withdraw his plea based on the conditions that were agreed upon at the plea hearing.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to deny the Defendant's motion to withdraw his plea.

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, J. (JONATHAN B. SUTIN, J., and J. MILES HANISEE, J., concurring): The Court found that the Defendant was informed prior to entering his plea that he could only withdraw his plea if federal charges were never filed. Since federal charges were filed, the conditions allowing for the withdrawal of the plea were not met. The Defendant's agreement to these terms and subsequent plea were determined to be entered into knowingly and voluntarily. The Defendant's memorandum in opposition did not dispute these facts or provide new arguments that demonstrated error on appeal. Therefore, the Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the plea (paras 1-5).