Frame v. State

In Frame v. State, 2001 WY 72, 29 P.3d 86 (Wyo. 2001), the Court discussed a motion to withdraw a guilty plea filed before sentencing, where the defendant alleged that he was forced to plead guilty. The claim of coercion in Frame was portrayed on appeal as an issue of ineffective assistance of counsel, and there was no contention that the district court failed to comply with W.R.Cr.P. 11. The Court suggested the following analysis: A motion to withdraw a guilty plea, such as that filed here, is governed by W.R.Cr.P. 32(d) which provides that if a motion for withdrawal of a guilty plea is made before sentence is imposed, the court may permit withdrawal upon a showing by the defendant of any fair and just reason. A defendant has no absolute right to withdraw a plea of guilty before sentence is imposed, and where the strictures of W.R.Cr.P. 11 have been met, and the defendant intelligently, knowingly, and voluntarily entered into his plea of guilty, the district court's decision to deny such a motion is within its sound discretion. Burdine v. State, 974 P.2d 927, 929-30 (Wyo. 1999); 3 Charles Alan Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal 2d 538 (1982 and Supp. 2001). The Court set forth seven factors that we identified as pertinent to the exercise of a trial court's discretion in deciding whether to grant a motion to withdraw a guilty plea: (1) Whether the defendant has asserted his innocence; (2) whether the government would suffer prejudice; (3) whether the defendant has delayed in filing his motion; (4) whether withdrawal would substantially inconvenience the court; (5) whether close assistance of counsel was present; (6) whether the original plea was knowing and voluntary; (7) whether the withdrawal would waste judicial resources. 3 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal 2d 538 (Supp. 2001); United States v. Black, 201 F.3d 1296, 1299-1300 (10th Cir. 2000). (Frame, 2001 WY 72 at P7.)