State Of Washington v. Deena M. Sandberg, 48787-0

On Aug. 1, 2014, Deena Sandberg was escorted out of a Shelton casino by an officer after a disturbance; she dug her fingernails into the officer’s arm, causing bleeding.
The State charged Sandberg with third degree assault under RCW 9A.36.031(1)(g), alleging she "did intentionally assault" a law enforcement officer.
Sandberg entered a guilty plea as part of a deal (State would not pursue bail-jumping and would request first-time offender treatment). The plea form referenced the elements "as in the information."
At the plea hearing Sandberg said her conduct was "on accident" and later told the court at sentencing she had a petit mal seizure and that the injury was accidental.
The trial court accepted the plea as knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. After Sandberg sought to withdraw her plea (before final sentencing), the court denied the motion and imposed the agreed sentence. Sandberg appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because Sandberg did not understand intent element	Sandberg argued she misunderstood an essential element—she thought the act was accidental and not intentional—so plea was not knowing/voluntary	State argued plea form and information put Sandberg on notice of the elements and court properly accepted the plea	Court held record did not show Sandberg understood intent element; plea not knowing/voluntary and withdrawal necessary to avoid manifest injustice
Whether withdrawal standard (manifest injustice) was met because motion was pre-sentencing	Sandberg emphasized timely motion and candid statements that conduct was accidental due to seizure	State relied on plea colloquy and written plea to support voluntariness	Court treated pre-sentencing timing as supporting credibility and found manifest injustice established

State v. Robinson, 172 Wn.2d 783 (requirements for a knowing, intelligent, voluntary plea)
State v. Codiga, 162 Wn.2d 912 (court may rely on written plea agreement if defendant affirms it)
In re Pers. Restraint of Montoya, 109 Wn.2d 270 (notice of elements via reading information)
State v. Brown, 140 Wn.2d 456 (intent required to convict under third-degree assault statute)
State v. A.N.J., 168 Wn.2d 91 (manifest injustice standard for plea withdrawal)
State v. Lamb, 175 Wn.2d 121 (abuse of discretion review for denial of plea-withdrawal motion)