State v. Wilson, A-16-555

On Aug 31, 2015, Wilson, a passenger in a vehicle stopped by police, was found with methamphetamine; she was charged with a Class IV felony (possession of a controlled substance) and an infraction (possession of marijuana).
On Jan 26, 2016, Wilson pled guilty to both counts in exchange for the State’s recommendation that she be allowed to enter the Central Nebraska Drug Court Program; the court advised her that failure to complete drug court could result in imposition of the maximum sentence.
Wilson later moved to withdraw her guilty pleas (filed Feb 18, 2016), claiming she did not understand all drug court terms and did not want to participate because she intended to move out of state.
The district court held a hearing, found Wilson had been informed (including via a Hall County Attorney letter listing drug court requirements), found her testimony not credible, and denied the motion to withdraw the pleas.
Wilson voluntarily withdrew from drug court and at sentencing the court found substantial and compelling reasons to deny probation (refusal to cooperate with presentence investigation, refusal to obtain/authorize a substance-abuse evaluation, risk indicators) and sentenced her to 90 days’ incarceration plus 12 months post-release supervision for the felony; fine of $0 for the infraction.
Wilson appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion in (1) denying withdrawal of her guilty pleas and (2) imposing an excessive sentence by not imposing probation.

Issue	Wilson's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the court abused its discretion by denying withdrawal of guilty pleas	Wilson argued she had a fair and just reason because she was unaware of all drug court terms when she pled and would not have pled if she had known	State argued Wilson was informed (read letter listing requirements), had opportunity to inquire, and merely regretted the bargain	Court held no abuse of discretion; Wilson failed to show a fair and just reason and her claim was not credible
Whether the 90-day jail sentence was excessive under §29-2204.02(2)(c) (probation presumptive for Class IV felonies)	Wilson argued the court should have imposed probation; recent law limits discretion so incarceration requires substantial and compelling reasons	State argued the record contained substantial and compelling reasons (risk of reoffense, need for treatment, noncooperation with PSI) supporting incarceration	Court held no abuse of discretion; record showed substantial and compelling reasons to withhold probation

State v. Williams, 276 Neb. 716, 757 N.W.2d 187 (discusses standard and burden for withdrawing guilty pleas)
State v. Schurman, 17 Neb. App. 431, 762 N.W.2d 337 (addresses appellate review of plea-withdrawal denials)
State v. Baxter, 295 Neb. 496, 888 N.W.2d 726 (explains §29-2204.02(2)(c) and that trial court must show how it reached determination that reasons are substantial and compelling)