People v. Boling, 2011 Colo. App. LEXIS 647

Boling pled guilty to theft (class IV) and menacing (class V) under a plea agreement resolving multiple cases.
Dismissal of other charges and concurrent probationary sentences with a 60-day jail term were part of the deal.
Before sentencing, Boling moved to withdraw his guilty pleas; the trial court denied the motion.
At sentencing, the court ordered a sex offender evaluation and treatment as a probation condition.
Boling appealed, challenging both the denial of withdrawal of plea and the sex offender designation.
The appellate court affirmed both the denial of withdrawal and the sex offender status.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the withdrawal of plea properly denied?	People argued no fair and just reason existed to withdraw the plea.	Boling argued ineffective assistance and improper counsel as reasons to withdraw.	No abuse; denial affirmed.
Did the trial court correctly classify Boling as a sex offender?	People asserted Boling has a history of a sex offense triggering the statute.	Boling contended only juvenile adjudication post-2002 would apply, not his 1989 case.	Yes; classification proper under statute; history qualifies under II.

Maes v. People, 155 Colo. 570, 396 P.2d 457 (1964) (fair and just reason for withdrawal if plea entered under misconception or improper influence)
People v. Chippewa, 751 P.2d 607 (Colo. 1988) (discretionary standard for withdrawal of guilty plea)
People v. Meidinger, 987 P.2d 937 (Colo. App. 1999) (history of a sex offense includes underlying facts and circumstances)
People v. Lenzini, 986 P.2d 980 (Colo. App. 1999) (statutory requirement of sex offender evaluation in presentence report)
People v. Valenzuela, 216 P.3d 588 (Colo. 2009) (statutory disjunctive definitions of sex offender; multiple paths to status)
People v. Lucas, 232 P.3d 155 (Colo. App. 2009) (when statute is disjunctive, only one condition need be met)