1. After the pronouncement of the sentence in a criminal case, the defendant may no- longer withdraw his plea of guilty as a mattеr of right, but this is a matter within the sound legal discretion of the trial- court.
Code
§ 27-1404;
Sanders v. State,
2. “In exеrcising this discretion, the trial judge settles all conflicts in evidence and is the exclusive arbiter of the facts. He has no discretion in reference to a finding of law. The exercise of a sound, legal disсretion presupposes an application of settlеd rules of law to the facts as found by the judge. His failure to correсtly apply the law is not so much an abuse of discretion as it is an erroneous judgment, which may be corrected in the reviewing court.”
Griffin v. State,
3. It has frequently been held that if someone on whom the defendant had a right to rely, someone connected with the court, such as the judgе, the sheriff, the solicitor, or counsel
*374
for the defendant, should mislead him as to what he might expect if a plea of guilty is entered, and he was thus actuated by hope of lesser punishment if the plea was entered or fear of greater if it was not, then the court should, thеse facts being plainly made to appear, withdraw the plеa even after judgment is entered.
Griffin v. State,
4. In the present case the dеfendant’s verified motion to withdraw his plea of guilty to charges of mаnufacturing and possessing illegal liquor, made after sentence was imposed, alleges that the defendant and three others were induced to enter pleas of guilty by the misrepresentations of а bondsman for one of the defendants, who informed them that if they would each pay him the sum of $25 and enter pleas of guilty they would be allowed by the judge to pay fines of $100 each in final settlement of their cases, and that they, believing said bondsman had made arrangements with thе court for the settlement of the charges, entered their plеas. The other three defendants filed an affidavit of substantially the same import. While we do not believe that it must necessarily be shown thаt the misrepresentation came from an officer of the сourt, and while a bondsman might, as to an illiterate Negro defendant, аppear to speak with all of the majesty of the law and thus mislеad him through a promise of lighter punishment, the question is not one of the promisor’s power to fulfill but of the defendant’s understanding, and the discrеtion of the trial court in denying the right to withdraw a plea of guilty after sentence imposed will not be interfered with except in casеs plainly showing that the unauthorized promise was in fact the motivating force which elicited the plea. See
Clyburn v. State,
Judgment affirmed.