State v. Phelps, 329 S.W.3d 436

Defendant Terry Phelps, a convicted violent sexual offender, was released on parole in 2006 and registered under the Registration Act with Bedford County as his primary address and Rutherford County as a secondary address.
In November 2007, Defendant was arrested in Lincoln County for allegedly violating the Registration Act by not timely registering a change of residence; he had been living in Lincoln County without updating authorities.
Defendant pled open guilty on February 7, 2008 to the charge of violating the Registration Act and later moved to withdraw the plea before sentencing.
Defendant's motion to withdraw alleged lack of understanding and a belief that he was not guilty, supported by an affidavit and testimony at a withdrawal hearing, while the trial court deemed this a mere change of heart.
The trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range II offender to three years, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, and the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court failed to apply the correct pre-sentencing “fair and just reason” analysis and that sufficient grounds existed to withdraw the guilty plea; case remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Pre-sentence withdrawal standard applied	Phelps argues multi-factor test applies.	Phelps contends proper framework was misapplied as change of heart is insufficient.	Court must apply non-exclusive multi-factor test (fair and just) to pre-sentence withdrawals.
Fair and just reason for withdrawal	Phelps asserts a fair and just reason supported withdrawal.	State asserts no valid reason beyond change of heart.	Defendant established a fair and just reason; withdrawal granted.
Role of innocence assertion and record factors	Phelps asserted innocence; record supported some factors in his favor.	State argued innocence was not adequately supported.	Courts must consider multiple factors, including asserted innocence and underlying circumstances.
Effect of withdrawal on proceedings on remand	Withdrawal requires remand for new proceedings consistent with opinion.	N/A	Remand to trial court for further proceedings consistent with ruling.

Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S. 220 (1927) (escape from unfairly obtained plea; discretionary substitution of plea not guilty if fair and just)
Crowe, 168 S.W.3d 731 (Tenn.2005) (standard for withdrawal before sentencing; abuse of discretion standards)
Mellon, 118 S.W.3d 340 (Tenn.2003) (pre-sentence withdrawal framework; required considerations)
Barker, 514 F.2d 208 (D.C.Cir.1975) (early guideline on pre-sentence withdrawal; fair and just reasons)
Haygood, 549 F.3d 1049 (6th Cir.2008) (seven-factor test for pre-sentencing withdrawal)
Bashara, 27 F.3d 1174 (6th Cir.1994) (multi-factor approach to withdrawal; not dispositive)
Spencer, 836 F.2d 236 (6th Cir.1987) (framework leading to multi-factor analysis in pre-sentence withdrawal)
Ray, 451 S.W.2d 854 (Tenn.1970) (change of heart not controlling in post-sentencing context; not to bar withdrawal before sentencing)