State v. Peterson, 2013 MT 329

Peterson was charged in November 2008 with multiple felonies and a misdemeanor stemming from an October 2008 assault and kidnapping incident.
After competency evaluations, Peterson was found fit to stand trial; defense argued bipolar disorder but allowed to proceed.
On September 10, 2009, Peterson and counsel entered Alford pleas to most charges; he contested a specific charge and later sought to modify the plea terms.
Peterson was sentenced in 2009 to 70 years with 20 suspended; counsel withdrew from representing him.
In November 2010, Peterson moved to withdraw the Alford pleas, claiming mental incapacity, innocence, and defective colloquy; the district court denied the motion in December 2011.
The Montana Supreme Court affirmed denial of withdrawal and remanded solely to determine the amount of restitution for future counseling costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the motion to withdraw the Alford pleas properly denied?	Peterson asserts involuntariness due to mental state and inadequate colloquy.	Peterson argues ineffective assistance and lack of knowingly voluntary entry.	Denial affirmed; Pleas were knowingly and voluntarily entered.
Did the district court err in failing to determine restitution amount for future counseling?	District court should specify total restitution amount.	Remand needed to calculate the exact amount for future counseling.	Remanded to determine total restitution for future counseling costs.

North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1970) (permits guilty plea without admission of guilt)
State v. Otto, 366 Mont. 209 (Mont. 2012) (advisement required by statute; sufficiency for voluntariness)
State v. Warclub, 327 Mont. 352 (Mont. 2005) (voluntariness of plea; review standard)
State v. Usrey, 351 Mont. 341 (Mont. 2009) (good cause for withdrawal; mixed question of law and fact)
State v. Locke, 347 Mont. 387 (Mont. 2008) (Alford plea framework in Montana)