Winsted v. State, 2010 WY 139

Winsted pleaded no contest to one count of possessing a deadly weapon with intent to unlawfully threaten, under § 6-8-103; prior to sentencing, he sought to withdraw the plea.
The State dismissed Count I (aggravated assault and battery) and a DWUI charge as part of a plea agreement.
Winsted was released pending sentencing and then moved to withdraw his plea under W.R.Cr.P. 32(d) before sentencing.
A hearing was held; the district court denied withdrawal, applying Frame v. State seven factors.
Winsted appealed the denial, arguing abuse of discretion; standard of review is abuse of discretion with Frame factors.
The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the denial, upholding the district court’s exercise of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying withdrawal of the no contest plea before sentencing.	Winsted argues denial was error because he lacked a fair and just reason under Rule 32(d).	State contends proper Frame factors show no fair and just reason and that withdrawal would waste resources and prejudice the State.	No abuse of discretion; Frame factors support denial.

Frame v. State, 2001 WY 72 (Wyo. 2001) (abuse of discretion standard for withdrawal of plea before sentencing; seven Frame factors)
Major v. State, 2004 WY 4 (Wyo. 2004) (burden to show fair and just reason for withdrawal; no absolute right)
United States v. Black, 201 F.3d 1296 (10th Cir. 2000) (Frame-like considerations in withdrawal decisions)
United States v. Battle, 499 F.3d 315 (4th Cir. 2007) (plea withdrawal standards and meaningful Rule 11 procedures)
United States v. Ortega-Ascanio, 376 F.3d 879 (9th Cir. 2004) (recognizes fair and just reasons must be beyond mere change of mind)
Vaughn v. State, 962 P.2d 149 (Wyo. 1998) (Frame-factor analysis guidance)
Rolle v. State, 2010 WY 100 (Wyo. 2010) (abuse of discretion review; reasonableness standard)