State v. Walker
308 P.3d 573
Utah Ct. App.2013Background
- Walker pled guilty in 1985 to one count of sexual abuse of a child; other charges were dismissed.
- The plea included a polygraph agreement: if he passed, charges would be dismissed; if not, results admitted at trial.
- A presentence investigation and a diagnostic evaluation followed; Walker was sentenced to 1 to 15 years in prison in 1985.
- After habeas proceedings in 1986, Walker released from prison and later sought to withdraw his guilty plea in 2010.
- He offered affidavits from three victims recanting the earlier accusations; the State opposed, citing jurisdictional and substantive issues.
- The trial court denied the motion to withdraw; Walker appealed to the Utah Court of Appeals, which affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to hear the motion to withdraw. | State: 1989 amendment imposed a 30-day limit; motion untimely. | Walker: Abeyta controls; amendment not retroactive; court had jurisdiction. | Jurisdiction proper; 1989 amendment not retroactive; old standard governs. |
| Whether the motion is barred by res judicata or waiver. | State: prior habeas action precludes review; waiver due to delay. | Walker: no final judgment on merits; no clear waiver; other remedies exist. | Not barred by claim preclusion or waiver. |
| Which version of the plea withdrawal statute applies. | State: law in effect in 2010 (knowing and voluntary) governs. | Walker: 1985 good cause standard applies; substantive rights analysis. | The 1985 good cause standard applies; statute substantive. |
| Whether the denial of withdrawal was proper on merits (factual innocence, Rule 11(e) compliance, IAC) and whether an evidentiary hearing was needed. | State: recantations show innocence; potential Rule 11(e) and IAC issues warrant relief or hearing. | Walker: recantations insufficient; Rule 11(e) substantial compliance; no ineffective assistance; no need for hearing. | No abuse of discretion; factual innocence not good cause; Rule 11(e) substantial compliance; IAC rejected; no evidentiary hearing required. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Nicholls, 148 P.3d 990 (2006 UT 76) (jurisdictional correctness standard for amendments and timing)
- State v. Abeyta, 852 P.2d 993 (Utah 1993) (retroactivity limits on plea withdrawal amendment)
- State v. Clark, 251 P.3d 829 (2011 UT 23) (event regulated by law; substantive vs procedural rights distinction)
- State v. Gibbons, 740 P.2d 1309 (Utah 1987) (strict compliance for Rule 11(e) prior to Gibbons)
- State v. Blair, 868 P.2d 802 (Utah 1993) (substantial compliance standard for Rule 11(e) following Hoff)