State v. Matthew James Gonzales, 343 P.3d 1119

Gonzales charged with felony injury to a child under I.C. § 18-1501(1).
Plea agreement: State recommended six years unified (three fixed); district court imposed ten years (five fixed).
Gonzales moved to withdraw guilty plea after sentencing; argued plea was constitutionally infirm for not informing willfulness element.
Affidavit alleged defense counsel misinformed him that only inattentiveness needed proof.
Gonzales argued record lacked proper informing of elements; remand requested for factual findings on counsel’s disclosure.
District court denied withdrawal; on appeal Gonzales contends error and excessive sentence; remand ordered by court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the issue properly presented on appeal?	Gonzales.	State.	Yes; appeal allowed under direct review.
Was willfulness element properly informed before plea?	Gonzales lacked notice of willfulness.	Informing via charging document/counsel sufficient.	Remand required to determine if counsel correctly advised.
Should the case be remanded for fact-finding on counsel’s advice?	Record inadequate without findings.	No additional findings needed.	Remand for necessary findings; withdrawal may be granted if advised incorrectly.

Bradshaw v. Stumpf, 545 U.S. 175 (U.S. 2005) (plea validity may rely on counsel's explanation of elements; record must show awareness of elements)
State v. Bradley, 98 Idaho 918 (Idaho 1978) (charging document read in open court supports awareness of elements)
State v. Mayer, 139 Idaho 643 (Ct. App. 2004) (self-explanatory elements need not be redefined in plea record)
Stumpf, 545 U.S. 175 (U.S. 2005) (constitutional prerequisites may be satisfied when counsel explains the elements)
State v. Young, 138 Idaho 370 (Idaho 2002) (willfulness element considered in injury-to-a-child statute)