State v. Roy Ayers Baxter, Jr., 44535

Background

Baxter was charged with domestic violence and a related no-contact-order violation; the State agreed to dismiss other charges if Baxter pled guilty to domestic violence and the State would recommend probation unless a domestic violence evaluation rated him high risk, in which case it would recommend a rider.
Baxter privately retained a psychologist for the evaluation, but during the evaluation he denied ever hitting the victim and did not disclose recent methamphetamine use; the evaluation initially rated him moderate-to-high risk.
At the plea hearing Baxter admitted hitting the victim and also testified about recent methamphetamine use; he pled guilty with the understanding the State would recommend probation based on the evaluation.
After the plea, the prosecutor gave the psychologist Baxter’s plea-colloquy statements; the psychologist then reclassified Baxter as high risk and the State informed Baxter it would recommend a rider.
Baxter moved pre-sentencing to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing the State’s post-plea contact with the evaluator made the plea agreement meaningless; the district court denied the motion, finding the plea was voluntary and the prosecutor’s contact appropriate to complete the evaluation.
On appeal the Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Baxter failed to show a just reason to withdraw his plea because the evaluation had been incomplete due to Baxter’s own omissions and the prosecutor did nothing inappropriate by supplementing the evaluator’s information.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Baxter)	Held
Whether Baxter showed a just reason to withdraw his pre-sentencing guilty plea	No; Baxter’s evaluation was incomplete because he omitted material facts, so the prosecutor permissibly supplemented the evaluation and no just reason exists	Yes; prosecutor’s post-plea contact with the evaluator changed the promised recommendation and rendered the plea agreement meaningless/unforeseeable	Denied; Baxter failed to show a just reason to withdraw his plea because the prosecutor’s contact completed an evaluation that had been incomplete due to Baxter’s omissions
Whether the State had to be shown to be prejudiced before denying withdrawal	N/A—State would only need to show prejudice if defendant met burden of showing just reason	Baxter argued absence of foreseeability and that the post-plea change prejudiced him	Court did not reach prejudice because Baxter failed to establish a just reason to withdraw his plea

Key Cases Cited

State v. Freeman, 110 Idaho 117 (discretionary review of plea-withdrawal denials)
State v. Ballard, 114 Idaho 799 (timing of motion to withdraw plea affects standard)
State v. McFarland, 130 Idaho 358 (timing and discretion in plea-withdrawal motions)
State v. Hawkins, 117 Idaho 285 (defendant’s burden to show just reason for pre-sentence withdrawal)
State v. Dopp, 124 Idaho 481 (once defendant shows just reason, State may show prejudice)
State v. Arthur, 145 Idaho 219 (weight given to defendant’s motive after PSI disclosure)
State v. Colyer, 98 Idaho 32 (three-part inquiry on voluntariness of plea)
State v. Coffin, 104 Idaho 543 (trial court not required to establish factual basis before accepting plea)