State v. Ferretti, 336 P.3d 43

Defendant Robert Ferretti pleaded guilty to intentional murder after admitting he drove the victim to Cache County, shot her in the head, pushed her body down an embankment, and fled.
Ferretti later moved to withdraw his guilty plea, asserting it was not knowingly and voluntarily made.
He raised multiple grounds: he was on an antidepressant at plea, he misunderstood the elements and the relationship between admitted facts and the elements, and the court misinformed him about the legal standard for withdrawing a plea.
The plea affidavit set out the elements, the State’s burden, and the factual basis; the trial court orally reviewed the affidavit with Ferretti and confirmed his understanding on the record.
The trial court denied the motion to withdraw; Ferretti appealed. The Court of Appeals reviewed whether the plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered and whether Rule 11 requirements were met.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ferretti’s antidepressant use rendered the plea unknowing/involuntary	State: Issue not preserved; no exceptional circumstances warrant review	Ferretti: Medication impaired capacity to enter a voluntary plea	Court: Not preserved; no exceptional circumstances; claim rejected
Whether Ferretti was informed of the elements of intentional murder under Rule 11	State: Plea affidavit and oral colloquy established understanding	Ferretti: He equivocated and thus didn’t understand elements	Court: Plea affidavit and oral review satisfied Rule 11; Ferretti acknowledged elements
Whether there was an adequate factual basis for the plea	State: Facts admitted (shooting in head) support intentional murder elements	Ferretti: His statements suggested the killing was unintentional; compares to Thurman	Court: Facts admitted sufficiently establish intent/knowledge; distinguishes Thurman
Whether trial court’s misstatement of the withdrawal standard (good cause vs. involuntary) voids the plea	State: Misstatement doesn’t render plea involuntary and Rule 11 does not require advising on that standard	Ferretti: Misstatement misled him and affected voluntariness/relief standard	Court: Misstatement does not make plea unknowing/involuntary; Rule 11 doesn’t require advising on withdrawal standard; claim rejected

State v. Holland, 921 P.2d 430 (Utah 1996) (standard of review for plea compliance is correctness)
State v. Stilling, 856 P.2d 666 (Utah Ct. App. 1993) (guilty plea must be knowingly and voluntarily made)
Salazar v. Warden, 852 P.2d 988 (Utah 1993) (Rule 11 protects due process by ensuring defendant is informed of charges, elements, consequences)
State v. Holgate, 10 P.3d 346 (Utah 2000) (preservation rule and rare-exception doctrine)
State v. Weaver, 122 P.3d 566 (Utah 2005) (recognizing exceptional circumstances exception to preservation)
State v. Irwin, 924 P.2d 5 (Utah Ct. App. 1996) (use of exception to prevent manifest injustice)
State v. Thurman, 911 P.2d 371 (Utah 1996) (withdrawing plea when defendant consistently denied required mens rea despite affidavit)
State v. Ruiz, 282 P.3d 998 (Utah 2012) (distinction between old good-cause withdrawal standard and current involuntary-knowing standard)