Summary 2006 WY 43

Summary of Decision issued April 12, 2006

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide assistance.]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Valle v. State

Citation: 2006 WY 43

Docket Number: 05-31

Appeal from the District Court of Park County, Honorable Hunter Patrick, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Kenneth M. Koski, State Public Defender; Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Wyoming Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Matthew D. Obrecht, Student Intern..

Date of Decision: April 12, 2006

Issue: Whether the district court erred in denying Appellant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea without a hearing.

Holding: Appellant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea after judgment and sentence had been entered. The Court’s standard of review for a post-sentence withdrawal of guilty plea can be found in Deloge: if a motion to withdraw a plea is made after sentencing, a plea may be set aside only to correct manifest injustice. Whether a district court is required to hold an evidentiary hearing prior to deciding a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is governed by the test the Court adopted in Coleman: If 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 hearings, 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.
The Court’s review was limited to the allegations contained in the motion and the materials before district court at the time the motion was denied. Nothing contained in the motion suggests that Appellant was seeking a withdrawal of his plea due to affirmative misadvice. In his motion, Appellant alleged failure to advise him of immigration consequences of a plea to a lesser charge. Appellant made no allegation of affirmative misadvice in his motion or any allegation that he was ever offered the opportunity to plead to the lesser offense referenced in his motion. Appellant’s motion failed to allege a fundamental defect in the proceedings that would rise to the level of manifest injustice. His motion offered no plausible basis for withdrawal of the plea and accordingly, the Court found no abuse of discretion in the denial of Appellant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea without a hearing.

The decree of the district court was affirmed.

J. Burke delivered the opinion for the court.

Link to the case: http://tinyurl.com/olwsj .