Zepeda v. State, 152 Idaho 710

Zepeda was charged with grand theft by possession of stolen property after an acquaintance left a car with him and the car was found to be stolen.
Zepeda agreed to plead guilty in exchange for dismissal of a persistent violator enhancement and a unified sentence capped at eight years with three years fixed.
At the plea hearing, Zepeda claimed he did not know the car was stolen, and defense counsel indicated potential incriminating letters in the car.
The district court could not accept the plea initially, but after questioning and defense counsel's statements, it accepted the guilty plea under the record and a probable cause affidavit.
Sentencing imposed an eight-year unified term with three years determinate; the conviction and sentence were later affirmed on direct appeal.
During the post-conviction action, Zepeda asserted ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to move to withdraw the plea and for new material innocence evidence; the district court granted summary dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prejudice may be presumed for failing to file a motion to withdraw a guilty plea	Zepeda argues Cronic/Flores-Ortega presumption should apply	State contends prejudice must be shown under Strickland; no presumption here	Presumption did not apply; prejudice must be shown under Strickland
Whether Zepeda showed prejudice under Strickland if the motion to withdraw would have failed	Zepeda claims there was a substantial defense and witness	State argues no admissible evidence supports substantial defense and timely withdrawal was unlikely	Zepeda failed to show a reasonable probability the outcome would differ
Whether withdrawal of an Alford-type plea requires a 'just reason' and how to evaluate it	Zepeda asserts a just reason existed beyond innocence assertion	State maintains withdrawal requires substantial justification; evidence insufficient	Withdrawal denied; no just cause shown; plea withdrawal unlikely to be granted

Flores-Ortega v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000) (presumption of prejudice for failure to file a notice of appeal)
Cronic v. United States, 466 U.S. 648 (1984) (presumption of prejudice in certain circumstances)
Nixon v. Florida, 543 U.S. 175 (2004) (narrow exception for prejudice; need to show prejudice under Strickland)
State v. Dopp, 124 Idaho 481 (1993) (withdrawal of guilty plea before sentencing; just reasons required)
State v. Arthur, 145 Idaho 219 (2008) (discretion to grant withdrawal of guilty plea; liberal standard but justified by reason)
State v. Rodriguez, 118 Idaho 957 (1990) (consideration of defenses not raised at original pleading)
Hayes v. State, 146 Idaho 353 (Ct.App.2008) (courts' handling of ineffective assistance claims in Idaho)
Boman v. State, 129 Idaho 520 (Ct.App.1996) (preservation of error in ineffective assistance of counsel claims)
Workman v. State, 144 Idaho 518 (2007) (limitations on presumptions of prejudice in ineffective assistance)
State v. Creech, 109 Idaho 592 (1985) (lack of meaningful opportunity to discuss guilty plea with client)