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, Bill Turner, was indicted on 211 counts, including securities fraud, prohibited conduct in providing investment advice, fraud, forgery, theft of identity, and conspiracy to commit securities fraud. After initially pleading not guilty, the Defendant changed his plea to guilty for 13 counts of securities fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud. The plea agreement included a provision for restitution payment before sentencing, which would influence the sentencing structure. The Defendant failed to pay any restitution in the ten months following his guilty plea (paras 2-4, 7).

Procedural History

• District Court of Lincoln County: The Defendant was sentenced to ten years of incarceration, less 182 days for pre-sentence incarceration credit, plus two years of parole to run concurrently with five years of supervised probation after failing to pay restitution (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to allow withdrawal of his guilty plea, claiming the plea was involuntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel and coercion. Also argued that the court abused its discretion by refusing to grant continuances for his restitution and sentencing hearings (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the Defendant's plea was voluntary and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its decisions regarding the plea withdrawal and the scheduling of hearings.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion by refusing to allow the Defendant to withdraw his guilty plea on grounds of it being involuntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel and coercion.
• Whether the district court abused its discretion by refusing to grant the Defendant's requests for continuances of his restitution and sentencing hearings (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decisions, denying the Defendant's appeal (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals found that the Defendant did not demonstrate that his plea was involuntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel or coercion. The court noted that the plea colloquy was thorough, and the Defendant had not made any restitution payments despite the delay in sentencing. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the denial of continuances for restitution and sentencing hearings, as the Defendant had been granted several continuances, and there was no evidence of prejudice against the Defendant due to these decisions (paras 25-61).