Kirk Erwin Steffey v. The State of Wyoming, 449 P.3d 1100

On March 23, 2017 Steffey ran a red light, collided with two trucks, and fled; officers later located and arrested him. Field testing showed HGN indicators of impairment and a breath test registered .137%, but officers failed to observe him for the required 15 minutes before the breath test.
Prosecutor moved on August 10, 2017 to amend the original BAC-based felony DUI charge to a subsection alleging impairment to a degree rendering him incapable of safely driving; the court granted the amendment the same day.
On August 10, 2017, after a brief (about 5–10 minute) meeting with defense counsel shortly before court, Steffey pled no contest to the amended felony DUI and two misdemeanors under an oral plea agreement in which the State agreed to recommend no more than 4–7 years and Steffey could argue for probation.
Steffey filed two pre-sentence motions to withdraw his plea, asserting the plea was not knowing or voluntary because he had insufficient time to review discovery, was not adequately advised by counsel, and was misled about likely sentencing/probation; the district court denied both motions under the Frame factors.
The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed de novo whether the plea was knowing and voluntary and for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of the motions; it concluded the plea was not knowing or voluntary and that the district court misapplied two key Frame factors (close assistance of counsel and voluntariness), reversed and remanded.

Issue	Steffey's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Was the no-contest plea knowing and voluntary?	Steffey: plea was unknowing/involuntary — learned of amended charge and faulty breath test minutes before plea; insufficient time with counsel; did not understand plea terms or consequences.	State: colloquy cured any confusion; Steffey affirmed voluntariness; brief pre-plea consultation does not invalidate plea absent request for more time.	Court: Plea was not knowing or voluntary — Steffey did not understand the agreement or consequences and was given no extra time despite expressing need.
Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying Steffey’s motions to withdraw his plea?	Steffey: district court misapplied Frame factors; counsel was not adequately available and plea was involuntary, both supporting withdrawal.	State: Frame factors were applied correctly; Steffey’s assertions were bare or contradicted by the record.	Court: Abuse of discretion — trial court erred on the fifth (close assistance of counsel) and sixth (voluntariness) Frame factors; reversal and remand.

Frame v. State, 29 P.3d 86 (Wyo. 2001) (sets seven non-dispositive factors for pre-sentence plea-withdrawal motions)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance standard; court declined to require Strickland showing to satisfy Frame counsel-factor)
Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970) (pleas must be voluntary and with awareness of consequences)
Maes v. State, 114 P.3d 708 (Wyo. 2005) (de novo review of voluntariness of plea)
Major v. State, 83 P.3d 468 (Wyo. 2004) (totality-of-circumstances test for plea validity)
Winsted v. State, 241 P.3d 497 (Wyo. 2010) (discussion of Frame factors and that change-of-mind alone is insufficient)
Russell v. State, 312 P.3d 76 (Wyo. 2013) (bare assertion of innocence insufficient for withdrawal)
Berger v. State, 399 P.3d 621 (Wyo. 2017) (standard of review for plea-withdrawal denials)
Grove v. Pfister, 110 P.3d 275 (Wyo. 2005) (abuse-of-discretion may exist when correct law is misapplied)