State v. Brian K. Roberts
Background
- Defendant Brian K. Roberts was charged with criminal possession of a financial transaction card and initially pled not guilty, later pleading guilty pursuant to a plea agreement.
- The State agreed to recommend three years of probation in exchange for the guilty plea; the district court accepted the plea.
- Before sentencing and before the presentence report was reviewed, Roberts filed a motion under I.C.R. 33(c) to withdraw his guilty plea, supported by an affidavit asserting his innocence.
- The district court denied the motion, concluding a bare, post-plea assertion of innocence after previously admitting guilt did not constitute a "just reason" to withdraw the plea.
- The court sentenced Roberts to a three-year unified term (1.5 years minimum), suspended the sentence, and imposed three years of probation. Roberts appealed the denial of his motion to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused discretion in denying a pre-sentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea | State argued the court properly required a "just reason" and found Roberts offered only a bare assertion of innocence | Roberts argued his assertion of innocence constituted a just reason to withdraw his plea | Court held no abuse of discretion: a bare, belated claim of innocence is not a just reason to withdraw a plea absent additional explanation |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Freeman, 110 Idaho 117 (Ct. App.) (standard: withdrawal lies in district court discretion; review limited to abuse of discretion)
- State v. Ballard, 114 Idaho 799 (Idaho Sup. Ct.) (less rigorous standard for motions made before sentencing; defendant must show a just reason)
- State v. Dopp, 124 Idaho 481 (Idaho Sup. Ct.) (defendant must show just reason pre-sentencing; State may show prejudice)
- State v. Akin, 139 Idaho 160 (Ct. App.) (a declaration of innocence alone, when record shows factual basis for guilt, does not automatically permit withdrawal)
- State v. Lavy, 121 Idaho 842 (Idaho Sup. Ct.) (after-sentencing withdrawals require showing manifest injustice)