Delano Marco Medina, 2023 CO 46

Medina faced a felony menacing charge plus multiple other pending Lake County and one Boulder County cases; he pleaded guilty to menacing as an Alford plea in exchange for dismissal of five Lake County cases and a stipulated consecutive one-year sentence.
The written plea both acknowledged a factual basis and expressly waived establishment of a factual basis under Crim. P. 11(b)(6); plea counsel told the court Medina maintained innocence but wanted the global plea benefit.
The trial court accepted the plea after a colloquy and found it voluntary, knowing, and intelligent; the other Lake County cases were dismissed and Medina was released on bond but later failed to appear for sentencing; he was eventually sentenced per the plea.
Medina later moved to withdraw the plea/postconviction relief, arguing an Alford plea requires a nonwaivable judicial finding of strong evidence of actual guilt; the postconviction court denied relief, finding the plea valid and the waiver knowing and voluntary.
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed; the Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether Alford requires a constitutional, nonwaivable finding of strong evidence of guilt.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an Alford plea requires a nonwaivable judicial finding of strong evidence of actual guilt	Medina: Alford’s “strong evidence” requirement is a constitutional prerequisite and cannot be waived	People: The factual-basis/strong-evidence requirement is procedural (per Crim. P. 11) and may be waived; alternatively, even constitutional rights can be waived by plea	Court: No—the “strong evidence” showing is not a standalone constitutional requirement; a defendant may waive establishment of a factual basis under Crim. P. 11(b)(6) so long as the plea is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent
Whether the postconviction court erred in denying plea withdrawal based on lack of factual-basis finding	Medina: The plea was invalid under Alford without a judicial finding of strong evidence	People: The record shows Medina knowingly waived the factual-basis finding and voluntarily entered the plea for plea-bargain benefits	Court: Affirmed — the postconviction court did not err; the plea met the voluntary/knowing/intelligent standard and waiver was valid

North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (upheld guilty plea despite protestation of innocence where defendant intelligently chose plea and record showed strong evidence of guilt)
Bradshaw v. Stumpf, 545 U.S. 175 (2005) (guilty plea validity measured by voluntariness, knowledge, and intelligence)
Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970) (pleas valid only if voluntary, knowing, and intelligent)
Higgason v. Clark, 984 F.2d 203 (7th Cir. 1993) (Alford pleas need not be supported by a constitutionally required factual-basis finding)
Willett v. Georgia, 608 F.2d 538 (5th Cir. 1979) (view that a factual basis is constitutionally required for Alford pleas)
United States v. Tunning, 69 F.3d 107 (6th Cir. 1995) (factual-basis inquiry stems from procedural rules, not the Constitution)
People v. Birdsong, 958 P.2d 1124 (Colo. 1998) (Alford plea treated as a guilty plea under Colorado law)
Lacy v. People, 775 P.2d 1 (Colo. 1989) (due process does not generally require the record to show an adequate factual basis for a guilty plea)