State v. Miller, 281 P.3d 282

Miller was charged in Oct 2009 with a third‑degree felony for attempting to purchase cocaine in a sting in downtown Salt Lake City, which yielded no actual drugs.
Miller returned to Louisiana, retained Utah counsel McCullough; McCullough moved to dismiss the information, arguing one cannot convict of attempting to possess nonexistent drugs; district court denied.
Miller was later arrested in July 2010; arraigned, indigent, and appointed a public defender; McCullough was unaware of this case and did not attend the arraignment.
Miller pleaded guilty on Aug 3, 2010, with the public defender representing him; Miller’s motion to withdraw his plea was filed shortly before sentencing; the district court denied the motion and sentenced Miller to a suspended jail term with probation.
On appeal Miller challenges the denial of his motion to withdraw the plea and the information, arguing lack of counsel and potential pre‑plea constitutional issues, seeking dismissal of the information.
The court analyzes the motions under standard abuse‑of‑discretion review for withdrawal of a guilty plea and determines Miller’s plea stands given the record and the presumption of voluntariness from a proper colloquy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion denying the withdrawal of the guilty plea	Miller contends he was deprived of counsel of his choice and that withdrawal was warranted	State argues no abuse; Miller proceeded with appointed counsel and choices were respected	No abuse; denial affirmed
Whether Miller had a right to counsel of his choice at the plea hearing	Miller argues McCullough should have represented him at the change‑of‑plea hearing	Record shows Miller chose the public defender; no indication McCullough was required at the plea	District court acted within discretion; Miller’s choice of appointed counsel stood
Whether Miller received ineffective assistance of counsel from the public defender	Public defender was unaware of McCullough’s prior involvement and past motions	Ineffectiveness not established; speculation cannot prove prejudice	Ineffectiveness not proven; claim rejected
Whether the guilty plea was knowing and voluntary given the colloquy	N/A	A proper Rule 11 colloquy creates presumption of voluntariness; no deficiencies shown	Plea presumed knowing and voluntary; upheld the plea and conviction

State v. Ferretti, 2011 UT App 321 (Utah App. 2011) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for plea withdrawal)
State v. Rhinehart, 2007 UT 61 (Utah 2007) (plea waives nonjurisdictional errors where plea is valid)
State v. Barber, 2009 UT App 91 (Utah App. 2009) (right to counsel of choice; absent special circumstances)
State v. Ruiz, 2012 UT 29 (Utah 2012) (burden on defendant to prove plea not knowing/voluntary on presentence withdrawal)
State v. Gamblin, 2000 UT 44 (Utah 2000) (colloquy creates presumption of voluntariness)
State v. Maestas, 2012 UT App 53 (Utah App. 2012) (ineffective assistance requires demonstrable reality, not speculation)
State v. Munguia, 2011 UT 5 (Utah 2011) (ineffective assistance cannot be speculative)