Dobbins v. State
2012 WY 110
Wyo.2012Background
- Dobbins pleaded no contest to first-degree sexual assault under a plea agreement; consolidated appeals challenge pre- and post-sentence plea withdrawals.
- Arraignment (May 26, 2009) included rights advisements and discussion of penalties; Dobbins entered not guilty pleas then later changed to no contest at a change-of-plea (Nov. 20, 2009).
- Change of plea established a factual basis and a plea agreement: Count I no contest; Count II dismissed; no sentencing agreement.
- DNA evidence tied Dobbins to the assault; victim was his daughter, with allegations of intoxication and lack of consent.
- Sentencing hearing held Nov. 17, 2010; Dobbins received 25–30 years; additional monetary assessments were imposed.
- Dobbins moved to withdraw his plea pre- and post-sentencing, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel and Rule 11 noncompliance; district court denied both motions, later affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was post-sentence withdrawal proper under Rule 32(d) manifest injustice standard? | Dobbins asserts Rule 11 noncompliance and insufficient advisement; seeks withdrawal. | State argues harmless error; no manifest injustice. | No reversible error; post-sentence denial affirmed. |
| Was pre-sentence withdrawal proper under Frame factors, including close assistance of counsel? | Dobbins claims lack of close counsel justified withdrawal. | District court properly weighed Frame factors; counsel adequate. | District court did not abuse discretion; no fair and just reason shown. |
| Did Rule 11 compliance sufficiently protect Dobbins’ rights, given the totality of the circumstances? | Argues strict Rule 11 compliance was required, including court-only advisement. | Totality of circumstances showed voluntariness and understanding; harmless error. | Rule 11 compliance, viewed in totality, was adequate; no reversible error. |
| Were monetary assessments properly disclosed or subject to relief under Rule 11(b)(1)(C)? | Assessments were imposed without proper disclosure; relief via Rule 35 implied. | Issue not ripe for Rule 35 relief; not properly raised here. | Not reliefable on appeal; Rule 11(b)(1)(C) procedure applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Frame v. State, 29 P.3d 86 (Wy. 2001) (frame factors guide withdrawal analysis)
- McCard v. State, 78 P.3d 1040 (Wy. 2003) (discretionary standard for pre-sentence withdrawals)
- Browning v. State, 32 P.3d 1069 (Wy. 2001) (manifest injustice standard after sentencing)
- Van Haele v. State, 90 P.3d 708 (Wy. 2004) (Frame factors origin for fair and just reasons)
- Sena v. State, 233 P.3d 993 (Wy. 2010) (Rule 11 application post-totality analysis)
- Gist v. State, 768 P.2d 1054 (Wy. 1989) (Rule 11 informed by federal practice; not ritualistic requirement)
- McCarty v. State, 883 P.2d 367 (Wy. 1994) (Rule 11 compliance considered under totality; harmless error potential)