State v. Flowers, 150 Idaho 568

Flowers, 24, pled guilty to statutory rape under a plea deal; two related charges were dismissed.
The State recommended 10 years with 3 fixed, 7 indeterminate; court accepted plea and sentenced 15 years with 5 fixed, 10 indeterminate.
Defendant moved to withdraw the plea post-sentencing under Rule 33(c); argued lack of Rule 11(d)(2) advisement on sex-offender registration.
Rule 33(c) pre-sentence standard requires manifest injustice; post-sentence standard requires manifest injustice to withdraw plea.
Defendant argued Rule 11(d)(2) advisory error affected voluntariness/knowingness; district court found no manifest injustice; plea affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the denial of withdrawal of guilty plea was proper	Flowers sought withdrawal nine months post-sentencing; argues manifest injustice	Motion should be considered pre-sentencing or due to Rule 11(d)(2) noncompliance	No manifest injustice; denial affirmed
Whether Rule 11(d)(2) noncompliance invalidates the plea	Non-disclosure of sex-offender registration was a direct consequence	Registration is a collateral consequence; not required for validity	Noncompliance alone did not render plea invalid
Whether plea agreement was breached during sentencing or Rule 35 proceedings	Prosecutor's comments treated as binding; sentenced beyond recommendation	No binding post-plea restriction; Lampien not controlling here	No breach; sentencing within discretionary range; no manifest injustice

State v. Dopp, 124 Idaho 481 (1993) (pre-sentence standard requires just reason to withdraw; manifest injustice post-sentencing)
State v. Heredia, 144 Idaho 95 (2007) (Rule 11(d)(2) advisory not a direct consequence; voluntary plea standard)
Ray v. State, 133 Idaho 96 (1999) (direct consequences of plea; sex-offender registration collateral)
State v. Johnson, 101 Idaho 581 (1980) (sentencing discretion in reliance on information for background)
United States v. Sharp, 179 P.3d 1059 (2008) (conviction occurs by plea or jury verdict; no oral acceptance required)
State v. Lampien, 148 Idaho 367 (2009) (bond on plea agreement; unusual language could breach if State bound to recommendation)
State v. Longest, 149 Idaho 782 (2010) (prosecutor not bound to plea terms after sentencing; no breach here)
State v. Stevens, 146 Idaho 139 (2008) (no statutory 19-2521 findings required in sentencing)
State v. Stover, 140 Idaho 927 (2005) (nonbinding 19-2521 factors not mandatory findings)
State v. Cannady, 137 Idaho 67 (2002) (review of sentence against statutory criteria)