Jerry Nelson Davis appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion to withdraw his negotiated guilty plea to two counts of theft by taking and four counts of burglary. placeCityDavis was sentenced to a total of 40 years, 20 to serve and 20 on probation. On appeal, placeCityDavis contends that his plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered because he asked the court to appoint a new attorney to represent him on appeal before entering the plea. We affirm, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow placeCityDavisto withdraw his plea. “After sentence is pronounced, a guilty plea may be withdrawn only to correct a manifest injustice.”1 In addressing the motion to withdraw the plea, “the trial court is the final arbiter of all factual disputes raised by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 Because a ruling on a defendant’s motion to withdraw a guilty plea lies within the trial court’s sound discretion, we will not disturb a trial court’s refusal to permit withdrawal of the plea absent a manifest abuse of that discretion.3 When a defendant enters a plea of guilty, and subsequently challenges the validity of the guilty plea, the state may meet its burden of demonstrating that the plea was intelligently and voluntarily entered by showing on the record of the guilty plea hearing that the defendant was cognizant of all of the rights he was waiving and the possible consequences of his plea.4 In the case at bar, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Davis’s motion to withdraw the plea because the state met its burden by showing from the record that Davis was cognizant of the rights he was waiving and of the possible consequences of his plea. The transcript of the guilty plea hearing, at which Davis was represented by counsel, reveals that Davis informed the court that he was 48 years old; that he had informed his attorney of all the facts and circumstances surrounding all of his cases, including a pending probation revocation; that he could read and write and had completed college; and that he had reviewed the waiver of rights form with counsel, who answered all of his questions about his constitutional rights and about the minimum and maximum sentences involved. placeCityDavisalso stated that he understood that he could be sentenced to 110 years on the theft and burglary charges plus 30 years on a felony charge of manufacturing marijuana. placeCityDavistold the court that he was not under the influence of any alcohol or drugs, except for certain medications prescribed to treat psychological problems and cancer, which did not affect his ability to understand the proceedings. placeCityDavisfurther stated that no one had threatened him, coerced him, or promised him easier treatment or a lesser sentence to cause him to plead guilty. In answer to the court’s questions, defense counsel stated that in his opinion, Davis understood both the charges and the proceedings, and his medications did not interfere with his comprehension. The court outlined all of the rights Davis would be waiving upon his entry of a guilty plea, including the right to a trial by jury and other attendant rights, and Davis stated that he understood. When the court asked Davis whether he had any questions, the following colloquy ensued:
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir, I do. I would like to ask you to appoint me an appeal attorney. I would like Mr. Moffitt not to do my appeal, I’ll ask you to appoint me an attorney for my appeals. THE COURT: Well, we haven’t gotten to that stage yet. That was the only question THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Do you have any questions about entering a plea of guilty here today THE DEFENDANT: No, sir, I understand that. THE COURT: . . . I want to be very clear about this, are you satisfied with the services your attorney has rendered to you THE DEFENDANT: I really can’t answer that. THE COURT: Well, I’m asking you that. . . . THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I am, sir. THE COURT: You are satisfied that he’s done everything that he can for you THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. THE COURT: He’s answered all your questions THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. THE COURT: And he’s given you the legal advice that you have accepted and going ahead with your plea of guilty here THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. THE COURT: All right. The prosecutor then read the charges and the recommended sentence for each offense. Davis stated that he understood the recommendation of 20 years in prison followed by 20 years on probation. The state also indicated that it would allow Davis to be sentenced as a nonrecidivist. Davis then asked whether, on the theft charges, the sentence was ten years to serve, then ten years on parole. The state clarified that both sentences would be served, for a total term of 20 years. Davis again verified that he understood the sentence; that his plea was freely and voluntarily made; and that he was pleading guilty because he was, in fact, guilty of each of the offenses. The prosecutor then stated what he expected the evidence to show as to each offense. The court inquired, “Is that what you did, Mr. Davis” He responded that “some of it is absolutely true . . . some of it is not.” Davis explained that some of the details were not “exactly right,” but they would not change the outcome, and he declined further comment. Davis also apologized to the court and explained that he had committed the offenses after he stopped taking his medication for his psychological problems. After further inquiry, Davis agreed that the state would be able to prove at trial what it had outlined in court. The trial court then accepted Davis’s plea. Finally, the court explained Davis’s right to appeal his sentence. Davis stated that he wished to appeal, and the court appointed a new attorney to represent him.
