State v. Wadsworth, 282 P.3d 1037

Wadsworth appeals convictions for sexual exploitation of a minor (2nd degree felony), unlawful sexual activity with a minor (3rd degree felony), and enticing a minor over the internet (Class A misdemeanor).
He contends the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel by not permitting withdrawal of his retained attorney, and by denying his motion to withdraw guilty pleas.
Wadsworth pleaded guilty on Oct. 22, 2004; sentencing did not occur until Dec. 4, 2009, after a prior motion to withdraw was denied.
Wadsworth proposed substitute counsel (Gustin-Fergis) but it was not ready at the time Warren withdrew; trial proceeded with Warren as counsel.
The court found no duty to inform or inquire into appointing the public defender after conflicts with retained counsel and held the plea withdrawals and Rule 11 compliance were not abused.
Ultimately, the court affirmed the convictions and rejected Wadsworth’s claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Counsel withdrawal denial and Sixth Amendment	Wadsworth argues denial violated Sixth Amendment right to counsel.	Wadsworth asserts improper denial obstructed representation.	No reversible error; substitution conditional on new counsel appearance was permissible.
Motion to withdraw guilty pleas	Wadsworth contends conflict with Warren made pleas involuntary.	Court should have allowed withdrawal for lack of effective counsel.	Not an abuse of discretion; plea withdrawals denied.
Strict compliance with Rule 11	Court failed to ensure understanding of right to compel witnesses.	Record shows sufficient understanding via plea affidavit and questioning.	Strict compliance satisfied; waiver of rights supported.
Duty to inform about public defender	Trial court should have inquired about public defender appointment due to indigence status.	No duty to inform under facts presented; substitution/appearance sufficient.	No duty to inform or to seek appointment beyond presented record.

State v. Scales, 946 P.2d 377 (Utah Ct. App. 1997) (abuse of discretion standard for withdrawal of counsel not meeting Sixth Amendment)
State v. Barber, 206 P.3d 1223 (Utah Ct. App. 2009) (right to select counsel limited by orderly process; substitution permissible)
United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006) (right to chosen counsel subject to conflicts and ethics; substitution allowed under conditions)
State v. Pedockie, 137 P.3d 716 (Utah 2006) (rigorous process for appointing substitute counsel when indigent or conflict arises)
State v. Gall, 158 P.3d 1105 (Utah Ct. App. 2007) (counsel's discharge at sentencing; need for agreement or court directive)
State v. Lovell, 262 P.3d 803 (Utah 2011) (standard for reviewing withdrawal of guilty pleas)
State v. Visser, 2000 UT 88 (Utah) (strict compliance with Rule 11 requires either on-record questioning or adequate affidavit)
State v. Gibbons, 740 P.2d 1309 (Utah 1987) (Rule 11 compliance framework)
State v. Corwell, 2005 UT 28 (Utah) (affidavit sufficiency can satisfy strict compliance with Rule 11(e))
State v. Alexander, 2012 UT 27 (Utah) (knowing/voluntary plea requirement; Court’s compliance with Rule 11 supports knowing waiver)