State v. Harvey, 348 P.3d 1199

Background

Harvey pleaded no contest to a reduced charge of third-degree aggravated assault after the State agreed to dismiss an unlawful detention count and reduce a forcible sexual abuse charge.
Before pleading, defense counsel reviewed AP&P’s Sentencing Matrix with Harvey, warned him to disclose any prior convictions, and told him prison was possible though unlikely; Harvey denied any prior felony convictions.
Harvey signed a plea affidavit stating the maximum sentence (0–5 years) and the court conducted a plea colloquy confirming Harvey knew prison was possible.
AP&P prepared a PSI that initially scored Harvey at 9 criminal-history points (category III); after corrections the score dropped to 8 but remained category III; AP&P nonetheless recommended an upward departure to prison based on violent history and other aggravating factors.
Harvey later contested an out-of-state Delaware conviction that contributed a point on the matrix; he moved to withdraw his plea claiming he thought he would receive probation and that his plea was not knowing and voluntary.
The district court denied the motion to withdraw, found Harvey competent (after multiple psychiatric evaluations), and sentenced him to 0–5 years in prison; the appeals court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Harvey)	Held
Whether Harvey’s plea was knowing and voluntary given his mistaken belief about his criminal history	Plea was knowing and voluntary because court and counsel informed Harvey of the direct consequences and maximum sentence	Harvey argued his factual misunderstanding of a prior felony prevented full awareness of sentencing consequences and thus plea was involuntary	Court held plea was knowing and voluntary; accurate advice about maximum possible sentence and colloquy were sufficient
Whether an inaccurate offender score (or undisclosed out-of-state felony) renders a plea involuntary	Matrix score did not create automatic consequence; AP&P’s prison recommendation rested on aggravating behavior, not the matrix placement	Harvey argued the felony point moved him into a higher advisory category and affected sentencing expectations	Court held the Delaware felony was not a "direct consequence" that made the plea involuntary; matrix is advisory
Whether plea withdrawal should be granted for hostile relationship with counsel (plain error / ineffective assistance)	Counsel adequately informed Harvey; court previously found counsel competent	Harvey claimed counsel was hostile, uncommunicative, and did not investigate defenses, arguing this impaired voluntariness	Court held record showed competent representation; hostility did not render plea involuntary; no plain error or ineffective assistance shown
Whether marginal competency required withdrawal of plea (plain error / ineffective assistance)	Court relied on three psychiatric evaluations and found Harvey competent to stand trial and plead	Harvey pointed to one evaluation finding delusional disorder and claimed marginal competency invalidated plea	Court held the district court’s competence finding was supported; no obvious error and no ineffective assistance for failing to urge withdrawal

Key Cases Cited

State v. Trotter, 330 P.3d 1267 (Utah 2014) (defendant must be fully aware of direct consequences for plea to be knowing and voluntary)
Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (U.S. 1970) (constitutional standard for voluntariness of guilty pleas)
State v. Egbert, 748 P.2d 558 (Utah 1987) (description and purpose of the Sentencing Matrix)
State v. Candland, 309 P.3d 230 (Utah 2013) (defendant must know likely consequences for plea to be voluntary)
State v. Alexander, 279 P.3d 371 (Utah 2012) (standard for showing a plea was not knowing and voluntary)
State v. Robinson, 263 P.3d 1233 (Wash. 2011) (distinguishing legal mistakes about applicable law from factual misunderstandings of criminal history)
People v. Chippewa, 751 P.2d 607 (Colo. 1988) (discussing standards for plea withdrawal under former rules)