State v. Cesar A. Lipa (071011)
219 N.J. 323
| N.J. | 2014Background
- Defendant Cesar A. Lipa pleaded guilty to first-degree aggravated sexual assault under a plea agreement.
- Before sentencing, Lipa moved to withdraw the plea and to obtain DYFS/ DYFS records, asserting innocence and counsel-induced plea.
- Trial court denied withdrawal, applying Slater factors and finding no colorable innocence and that plea consequences were explained.
- Appellate Division affirmed the denial; the case was certified to the Supreme Court.
- Supreme Court reversed, holding that under Slater the defendant presented a colorable innocence claim and sufficient reasons to withdraw the plea in the interest of justice; the post-plea withdrawal standard applies and the matter is remanded for trial or further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Slater governs pre-sentence withdrawal and was misapplied | Lipa asserts he presented credible, specific facts constituting a colorable innocence claim. | Lipa argues the judge should apply Slater with deference to the colorable innocence and consider his evidence. | Slater misapplied; defendant entitled to withdrawal in the interest of justice. |
| Whether defendant presented a colorable claim of innocence | Lipa supplied specific facts (knees, photos, DYFS records) supporting innocence. | Lipa provided non-bald, credible facts that could impeach M.G.’s testimony. | Yes, colorable claim of innocence established. |
| Whether the existence of a plea agreement weighs against withdrawal | Agreement should weigh against withdrawal. | Weights of the plea bargain are not controlling; liberal standard before sentencing applies. | Factor weighs against withdrawal but not determinative; balance supports withdrawal. |
| Whether the State would be prejudiced by withdrawal and other Slater factors | State would face little prejudice given the nature of charges. | Prejudice to the State could arise from undoing a plea in a sensitive case. | Prejudice not shown; withdrawal warranted in the interests of justice. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Slater, 198 N.J. 145 (2009) (framework for evaluating post- Slater withdrawal motions; four factors)
- State v. Simon, 161 N.J. 416 (1999) (plea withdrawal discretion after voluntary plea)
- State v. McCoy, 222 N.J. Super. 626 (App. Div. 1988) (appellate deference for voluntary/knowing plea findings)
- State v. Crawley, 149 N.J. 310 (1997) (plea validity prerequisites)
- State v. Munroe, 210 N.J. 429 (2012) (colorable innocence standard; need not exonerate)