Dobbins v. State

Summary

The Wyoming Supreme Court considers Steve Edward Dobbins's consolidated appeals challenging the denial of his pre-sentence and post-sentence motions to withdraw a no-contest plea to first-degree sexual assault. The court addresses alleged ineffective assistance or lack of close assistance of counsel, the standards governing plea withdrawal before and after sentencing, and compliance with Wyoming Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. The document text concludes that the district court's rulings and the judgment and sentence should be affirmed.

Holdings

1. Dobbins did not establish manifest injustice warranting withdrawal of his plea after sentencing. Although the prosecutor, at the court's request, read the charges and potential penalties, the district court personally addressed Dobbins, engaged him in dialogue, confirmed his understanding of his rights and plea, and the totality of the circumstances showed that the plea was knowing and voluntary. Any variance from W.R.Cr.P. 11 was harmless because it did not affect substantial rights.
2. Dobbins could not obtain withdrawal of his plea on the assessments issue because W.R.Cr.P. 11(b)(1)(C) required him first to seek relief in the district court under W.R.Cr.P. 35. He had not filed a Rule 35 motion, so the issue was not properly before the appellate court.
3. Dobbins failed to establish a fair and just reason for pre-sentence withdrawal of his no-contest plea. The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Dobbins had close assistance of counsel and that his plea was knowing and voluntary.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Dobbins established a fair and just reason under W.R.Cr.P. 32(d) to withdraw his no-contest plea before sentencing based on alleged lack of close assistance of counsel and alleged noncompliance with W.R.Cr.P. 11.
2. Whether Dobbins established manifest injustice under W.R.Cr.P. 32(d) to withdraw his no-contest plea after sentencing because the district court allegedly failed to personally provide all required Rule 11 advisements.
3. Whether the alleged failure to advise Dobbins about mandatory assessments required withdrawal of his plea or instead had to be raised through a Rule 35 motion.

Disposition

affirmed