State v. G. Cold, 2017 MT 72N

Cold was charged with one felony count of theft (common scheme) based on diamond sales; initial plea was not guilty and trial was set.
Cold filed to vacate jury trial and pursue a change-of-plea; at the plea hearing she signed a written waiver, affirmed understanding of rights/penalties, and entered a no contest plea after a court colloquy.
The State recommended a three-year deferred sentence; the court later imposed a five-year suspended sentence with 90 days jail and ordered $111,790 restitution plus fees.
Five months after sentencing Cold began treatment for headaches, cognitive issues, and depression; she was later diagnosed (MRI) with findings consistent with traumatic brain injury (TBI).
Cold moved, within one year, to withdraw her no contest plea asserting the newly diagnosed TBI and related memory/executive dysfunction meant her plea was not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary and that counsel made promises/misrepresentations.
The District Court held an evidentiary hearing, found the plea colloquy and waiver adequate, and denied the motion; the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Cold’s no contest plea was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent	Plea was voluntary because signed waiver, adequate colloquy, and counsel representation showed understanding	Plea was not voluntary due to undiagnosed TBI impairing memory, executive function, and decisionmaking	Court held plea was voluntary based on record: waiver, colloquy, counsel, and Cold’s contemporaneous statements
Whether new medical evidence (TBI) constitutes good cause to withdraw plea	Good cause requires showing plea involuntary; State argues record does not support that showing	Cold argues post-sentencing TBI diagnosis is new evidence undermining voluntariness	Court held TBI evidence did not demonstrate plea involuntariness or good cause to withdraw
Adequacy of plea colloquy and waiver form	State: colloquy and signed waiver satisfied requirements for a voluntary plea	Cold: despite forms, cognitive impairment prevented true understanding	Court held colloquy and waiver were adequate and competent counsel participated
Whether counsel’s conduct/misrepresentations justify withdrawal	State: counsel had no concerns and encouraged but did not coerce plea; no promises shown	Cold: counsel made promises/misrepresentations that led to waiver of rights	Court held Cold failed to show counsel promised or misrepresented facts; no basis to withdraw plea

State v. Garner, 377 Mont. 173, 339 P.3d 1 (2014) (standards for voluntariness of plea and factors for withdrawal)
State v. Warclub, 327 Mont. 352, 114 P.3d 254 (2005) (review standard for voluntariness mixed question of law and fact)
State v. Andrews, 357 Mont. 52, 236 P.3d 574 (2010) (de novo review of motion to withdraw guilty plea)