State v. Collins, 359 P.3d 664

Collins was arrested on a warrant and for allegedly giving false info; he confessed heroin was on his person and agreed to plead guilty to possession of a controlled substance in a drug-free zone (second-degree felony) in exchange for dismissal of other charges.
Collins signed a plea affidavit admitting he had heroin when brought to jail (a drug-free zone); counsel confirmed she read the affidavit to him.
At the Rule 11 plea colloquy Collins personally affirmed ability to understand English, that he was not impaired, that he read and understood the plea affidavit, that its contents were true, that he understood rights waived, and that he entered the plea voluntarily.
The court explained sentencing recommendations are not binding, offered time to confer with counsel (Collins declined), and accepted the plea after counsel recited the factual basis.
Collins later moved to withdraw the plea, testifying he had been told by counsel he would be immediately sentenced and released on probation and that the plea would cause other judges to release him; he also claimed he lacked his glasses and had not read the affidavit and that counsel misidentified the drug-free zone.
The district court denied withdrawal, sentenced Collins to 1–15 years (suspended) and probation; on appeal the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered and that the withdrawal denial was not an abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Collins)	Held
Whether plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered under Rule 11	District court complied with Rule 11; colloquy and counsel’s reading ensured understanding	Collins lacked glasses, did not read affidavit, was confused/misled by counsel, so plea not knowing/voluntary	Affirmed—colloquy, counsel’s reading, and Collins’s own affirmative answers show plea was knowing and voluntary
Whether plea should be set aside under Utah Code §77-13-6	Collins failed to meet burden to show plea was not knowing/voluntary	Collins testified at withdrawal hearing about counsel’s promises and confusion about facts, showing lack of understanding at plea entry	Affirmed—defendant did not prove he lacked understanding at plea entry; denial of withdrawal not an abuse of discretion

State v. Beckstead, 140 P.3d 1288 (Utah 2006) (standard of review for Rule 11 compliance and plea-withdrawal denial)
State v. Alexander, 279 P.3d 371 (Utah 2012) (defendant must show lack of understanding of constitutional rights or charges to withdraw plea)