State v. Lovell, 2011 UT 36

Lovell's third direct appeal from a conviction for aggravated murder challenges the district court's denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
Lovell argues the trial court failed to strictly comply with Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e), which requires explicit advisement of rights waived by pleading guilty.
The district court held there was strict compliance (or, alternatively, no good cause if not strict) and denied withdrawal; this Court reverses.
The Court focuses on whether the plea was entered with strict compliance: the trial court did not expressly inform Lovell of the presumption of innocence or the right to a speedy, public trial before an impartial jury.
The analysis recognizes that past trial experience cannot substitute for explicit on-record advisement under Rule 11(e); the proper inquiry is whether Lovell was clearly and unequivocally informed of the enumerated rights.
Because the trial court failed to strictly comply with Rule 11(e), there was good cause to permit Lovell to withdraw his plea, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the trial court strictly comply with Rule 11(e)?	Lovell contends the court omitted rights and failed to ensure knowing waiver.	Lovell asserts past experience cannot cure the lack of explicit advisement.	No; strict compliance was not shown; omission of certain rights invalidates compliance.
If not strictly compliant, does good cause exist to withdraw the guilty plea?	Error in rule 11(e) constitutes good cause to withdraw.	Lovell argues the errors harmed the knowingness/voluntariness of the plea.	Yes; the court held there is good cause to withdraw the plea because of Rule 11(e) failures.
Should harmless error review apply to a preserved Rule 11(e) violation?	State argues harmless error should apply under established cases.	Lovell argues harmless error does not apply to preserved Rule 11(e) violations.	Harmless error review does not apply to preserved Rule 11(e) violations; harm is presumed.
Should the current Rule 11 be applied retroactively to Lovell's case?	State argues retroactive application of 2005 amendments is appropriate.	Lovell argues retroactive application would be a fundamental shift; current law should not apply retroactively.	No retroactive application; the amended rule constitutes a fundamental shift and is not applied to Lovell.

State v. Gibbons, 740 P.2d 1309 (Utah 1987) (strict compliance required; judge must establish defendant knew rights on the record)
State v. Smith, 777 P.2d 464 (Utah 1989) (unequivocally informed about sentence required)
State v. Hoff, 814 P.2d 1119 (Utah 1991) (strict compliance; plea must reflect knowledge of rights)
State v. Maguire (Maguire I), 830 P.2d 216 (Utah 1991) (pre-Gibbons substantial/comparative framework for record review)
State v. Maguire (Maguire II), 830 P.2d 216 (Utah 1992) (post-Gibbons clarification; strict vs substantial compliance; record as a whole discussed)
State v. Visser, 22 P.3d 1242 (Utah 2000) (milieu where strict compliance satisfied by adapting colloquy; role of defendant's trial experience)
State v. Corwell, 114 P.3d 569 (Utah 2005) (acknowledged use of record, plea affidavit to show informed rights; not require rote recitation)
State v. Mora, 69 P.3d 838 (Utah App. 2003) (harmless error discussion post-Maguire; footnote on applicability to Rule 11)
State v. Kay, 717 P.2d 1294 (Utah 1986) (harmless error review for Rule 11 violations; pre-Gibbons framework)
State v. Thurman, 911 P.2d 371 (Utah 1996) (withdrawal of guilty plea based on lack of facts supporting mental state)
State v. Dean, 95 P.3d 276 (Utah 2004) (purpose of Rule 11 to ensure rights and consequences of pleading guilty)