State v. Robinson, 263 P.3d 1233

Background

Robinson pled guilty to first-degree burglary and entered a Barr plea to third-degree rape after negotiations focused on an offender score; he believed his juvenile convictions had washed out and would not count toward sentencing.
Law changed while he was incarcerated; his 1994 murder conviction and four juvenile convictions began to count toward offender score under the current framework.
Before sentencing, discovery of undisclosed juvenile convictions increased the standard ranges for burglary and rape, nearly tripling the negotiated ranges.
Robinson moved to withdraw the plea four days before sentencing, arguing a legal mistake rendered the plea not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent.
The trial court granted withdrawal, finding reasonable but erroneous belief about the law and manifest injustice; the State appealed, Court of Appeals reversed, and the Supreme Court granted review to resolve the governing standard.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether withdrawal was proper for manifest injustice given discovery of additional criminal history	Robinson argues withdrawal was necessary to correct a manifest injustice.	State argues no manifest injustice; Codiga governs risk allocation for undisclosed history.	Yes; manifest injustice supported withdrawal; no abuse of discretion.
Whether Codiga controls and limits the defendant's ability to withdraw	Robinson relied on Codiga’s framework to show a legal error affected knowingness.	State contends Codiga supports withdrawal where attorneys miscalculate; here the plea was not knowing.	Codiga governs; trial court erred by not applying it properly.
Timing of the motion to withdraw and its impact on the due process assessment	Robinson moved promptly after discovering the error.	State argues timing should be weighed but does not alone prove manifest injustice.	Timing supports the finding of manifest injustice; timely motion weighs in favor.
Whether the plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent given the undisclosed history	Defendant’s belief about washed-out juvenile history undermined knowingness.	Plea agreement explicitly included juvenile history; defendant knowingly signed.	Plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent under the circumstances.
Whether enforcing the plea would undermine confidence in the justice system	Respecting the incorrect assumption would undermine fairness.	Manifest injustice required corrective action only when plainly unjust.	No manifest injustice if properly applied; but here manifest injustice favored withdrawal.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Codiga, 162 Wash.2d 912 (2008) (defendant not burdened with legal mistake when history is correct but miscalculated by counsel; plea withdrawal allowed only for manifest injustice)
State v. A.N.J., 168 Wash.2d 91 (2010) (timing of motion considered; manifest injustice standard applied to withdrawal)
State v. LaChapelle, 153 Wash.2d 1 (2004) (current offender score rules control; washed-out history considered unless law fixes it retroactively)
State v. Varga, 151 Wash.2d 179 (2004) (legislature intended to include previously washed convictions in offender score)
State v. Taylor, 83 Wash.2d 594 (1974) (manifest injustice standard and plea withdrawal framework origin)
State v. Zhao, 157 Wash.2d 188 (2006) (prevalence of manifest injustice standard for plea withdrawal)