State v. Hastings

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Dan Eugene Hastings’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea to felony theft by accountability. The Court held that the plea was knowing and voluntary, supported by an adequate factual basis, and entered in exchange for substantial benefits under the plea agreement.

Holdings

1. The District Court did not abuse its discretion or otherwise err in denying Hastings's motion to withdraw his guilty plea because the record showed that the plea was knowing and voluntary, had an adequate factual basis, and produced substantial benefits under the plea agreement.
2. The District Court properly refused to grant relief based on the State's allegedly untimely response.
3. The District Court did not deny the motion on a procedural timeliness ground; it considered the motion on its merits.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the District Court erred by denying Hastings's motion to withdraw his guilty plea under section 46-16-105(2), MCA.
2. Whether the District Court should have granted the motion because the State allegedly filed an untimely response.
3. Whether the District Court improperly treated the motion as untimely rather than deciding it on the merits.
4. Whether the record established that Hastings's plea was voluntary, intelligent, and supported by an adequate factual basis.

Disposition

affirmed