Melvin Wilson, proceeding pro se, appeals the Douglas County Superior Court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his non-negotiated guilty plea to three counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon1 for which the court sentenced him to serve five years concurrently for each count in confinement. Wilson contends that 1 the trial court erred by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea because it was not knowingly and voluntarily entered; 2 his constitutional right to proper notice of the charges in the form of an indictment was violated; 3 the evidence was insufficient to support the accusations; 4 the convictions constitute a double jeopardy violation; and 5 his trial counsel was ineffective. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. 1. Wilson argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea because it was not knowingly and voluntarily entered into. Specifically, Wilson contends that he did not understand that he was subject to a higher possible sentence than five years with two to serve. We disagree. A ruling on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and we will not disturb that ruling absent a manifest abuse of that discretion. Of course, in determining the motion, the trial court is the final arbiter of all factual disputes raised by the evidence. If evidence supports the trial court’s findings, we must affirm.2 Generally, a guilty plea may only be withdrawn if the defendant establishes that such withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice —ineffective assistance of counsel or an involuntary or unknowingly entered guilty plea.3 The State must show that the plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered into by showing “through the record of the guilty plea hearing that 1 the defendant has freely and voluntarily entered the plea with 2 an understanding of the nature of the charges against him and 3 an understanding of the consequences of his plea.”4
A review of the plea hearing transcript shows that the State reviewed with Wilson the accusation and affirmed on the record that he understood that he would be pleading guilty without any negotiated recommendation from the State and that the State sought to sentence him as a recidivist. While doing so, the State informed Wilson both of the maximum punishment of 15 years and maximum fine of $300,000 as to the charges. The State then confirmed that Wilson signed a Waiver of Rights form and that his attorney went over the form with him. In response to questions from the State, Wilson stated that he understood that he was giving up his right to a jury trial, his right against self incrimination, his right to a presumption of innocence, his right to require the State to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, his right to confront witnesses, his right to subpoena witnesses and present evidence on his own behalf, and his right to testify on his own behalf or to remain silent. Wilson also responded positively when asked whether he was entering the plea freely and voluntarily, and he denied that anyone had made any promises to him or threatened him in any way in order to force him to plead guilty.
