Shaw v. State

The record supported the trial court's finding that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered his plea.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

John Shaw was indicted for the offenses of aggravated assault, making terroristic threats, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Following a hearing at which he was represented by counsel, Shaw entered a non-negotiated guilty plea on all three counts. The trial court sentenced him to a total of 30 years, 15 of which would be served in custody, followed by 15 years on probation. While represented by new counsel, Shaw filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Shaw appeals from the trial court’s order denying his motion. Finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision, we affirm. 1. Shaw contends that the trial court erred in finding that his guilty plea was knowing and voluntary, because there was evidence that he suffered from medical and mental health problems and was under the influence of medication when he entered his guilty plea.

Once a defendant challenges the validity of a guilty plea, the state bears the burden of showing that the plea was entered voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently; that is, “that the defendant was cognizant of all of the rights he was waiving and the possible consequences of his plea.”1 The state may meet its burden by 1 showing on the record that the defendant was cognizant of his rights and the waiver of those rights, or 2 using extrinsic evidence that shows affirmatively that the guilty plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily.2 In ruling on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, “the trial court is the final arbiter of all factual issues raised by the evidence, and after sentence is pronounced a guilty plea may be withdrawn only to correct a manifest injustice.”3 Moreover, a ruling on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea after sentencing is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and that discretion will not be disturbed on appeal unless it has been manifestly abused.4 In this case, the state has met its burden by showing that Shaw was cognizant of the rights he was waiving and the consequences of his plea.5

Shaw v. State

The record supported the trial court's finding that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered his plea.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report