Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea Must be Supported by Admissible Evidence

"When the stated grounds for a motion to withdraw a guilty plea require a presentation of evidence, the Idaho Rules of Evidence apply."

In State v. Stone, the defendant pleaded guilty but filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea prior to sentencing where he presented some twenty factual grounds for withdrawal of his plea, including that his attorney failed to advise him of the elements of the offense and that counsel did not advise him of a potential defenses to the charge.


The trial court denied the motion finding that the plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. The use of this standard was error because a motion to withdraw a guilty plea made before sentencing need only be supported by a "just reason." A constitutional defect in the plea need not be shown to meet either the "just reason" standard or the "manifest injustice" standard (used in cases where the motion is made after sentencing).

The COA, nevertheless, affirmed the denial of the motion because Mr. Stone did not present any evidence to support his allegations. "Because Stone did not submit any admissible evidence, by testimony or otherwise, to show any allegation made . . . were true, the motion could not have been properly granted under either a 'just reason' standard or constitutional standard."

"Whether [evidence needs to be presented] depends upon the basis for the motion -- whether it turns on matters that appear in the court's record, or that occurred in open court, or alleged events that occurred outside of the judicial proceedings and that the State has not acknowledged or stipulated to."

Here's the link: http://www.isc.idaho.gov/opinions/Stone,%20Faron.pdf

It seems to be common practice to support a motion to withdraw a guilty plea with simply unsworn assertions by the defendant or with a proffer by defense counsel. That, it is now clear, is not enough. Be prepared to prove up the reasons in support of your motions either by evidence or stipulation.

The 'good news' is that this ruling will presumably apply to other motions, including, for example, motions by the prosecution to continue a trial for witness unavailability. Defense counsel can now demand the state put on admissible evidence to prove its claim, Or we can just argue the absence of admissible evidence at the hearing.

This case has the potential to be a can o' worms (in case you were wondering about the illustration above) because sometimes, as here, the defendant will have to testify about counsel's alleged deficiencies. This will create a conflict of interest between counsel and client. Further, the state might call the defense attorney to challenge the defendant's allegations. All this will necessitate the appointment of conflict counsel.