Rodriguez v. State

Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Lorenzo Rodriguez pled guilty to trafficking in methamphetamine and possession of marijuana. The trial judge accepted the plea agreement and sentenced Rodriguez to serve 15 years in confinement and 10 years on probation. Rodriguez moved to withdraw his guilty plea, but the trial court denied the motion. Rodriguez appeals. Rodriguez claims that the trial court erred in denying his request to withdraw his guilty plea because he was not correctly informed of either the maximum sentence he faced for both offenses or the mandatory minimum sentence for the methamphetamine trafficking charge. Indeed, under Uniform Superior Court Rule 33.8 C, a trial judge should not accept a guilty plea without first informing the defendant of the maximum possible sentence and any mandatory minimum sentence. But contrary to Rodriguez’s claims, he was properly informed of the maximum possible sentence for both charges and the mandatory minimum sentence for the methamphetamine trafficking charge.

As Rodriguez notes in his brief, he faced a maximum prison sentence of 31 years: 30 years for trafficking because he possessed more than 200 grams of a mixture containing methamphetamine,1 plus 12 months for possessing less than one ounce of marijuana.2 The transcript of the plea hearing shows that at the start of the hearing Rodriguez was asked by the prosecutor if he understood that he was subject to a punishment of up to 31 years imprisonment, and Rodriguez answered that he did understand he was subject to such punishment.