Holmes v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 502

Holmes pled guilty to trafficking methamphetamine, possessing drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture, and maintaining a drug premise within 1000 feet of a city park.
At the sentencing hearing in front of a jury, the defense moved to exclude photographs, physical evidence, and Holmes’s police interview; the court denied the motion.
Holmes then sought to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming his plea was entered to avoid admission of the excluded evidence based on his attorney’s assurances.
Holmes’s attorney stated that the best way to exclude the evidence was to plead and then move to exclude during sentencing.
The circuit court refused to allow withdrawal, stating that the proceedings could not be stopped midstream to undo the plea.
The State presented the contested evidence at sentencing and the jury sentenced Holmes to 30 years, with concurrent terms on the other counts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying withdrawal of the guilty plea	Holmes argues ineffective counsel and denial of means to avoid evidence at trial.	Holmes’s withdrawal was necessary to correct manifest injustice due to alleged ineffective assistance.	No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence at sentencing	Evidence was prejudicial and cumulative; guilt already established by plea.	Evidence was probative to establish a factual basis for the crimes and necessary for sentencing.	No abuse of discretion; admission affirmed.

Hagen v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 322 (Ark. App. 2010) (discretion in ruling on withdrawal motions)
Branstetter v. State, 346 Ark. 62, 57 S.W.3d 105 (Ark. 2001) (unfair prejudice vs. probative value in Rule 403 analysis)
Anderson v. State, 93 Ark. App. 454, 220 S.W.3d 225 (Ark. App. 2005) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)