 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] State v. Aeto7/23/2004
e defendant has the burden of establishing plausible and legitimate grounds for the withdrawal." [State v. Merino, 81 Hawaii 198, 223, 915 P.2d 672, 697 (1996)] (citation and internal quotation marks omitted; brackets in the original); Reponte v. State, 57 Haw. 354, 361, 556 P.2d 577, 582 (1976) (defendant must carry this burden by a preponderance of the evidence). Cf. Carvalho v. Olim, 55 Haw. 336, 342-43, 519 P.2d 892, 896-97 (1974) (where the record is silent, it is presumed that the defendant did not voluntarily and knowingly enter his or her guilty plea and the burden is on the State to rebut that presumption). State v. Topasna, 94 Hawaii 444, 451, 16 P.3d 849, 856 (App. 2000).
To satisfy his burden, Aeto had to prove his allegation that he pled guilty without a sufficient understanding of the charges against him. Assuming the fact that the lower court accepted Aeto's no contest pleas "even though the record did not reflect a recitation of the material elements of each charge or an inquiry into the sufficiency of Aeto's understanding of the nature of the charges" is not proof that Aeto pled no contest without a sufficient understanding of the charges against him. In light of the evidence, and the absence of any evidence that Aeto pled no contest without a sufficient understanding of the charges against him, the August 22, 2002 order must be affirmed.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we affirm the August 22, 2002 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Withdraw No Contest Plea Filed May 28, 2002, and Amended Motion to Withdraw No Contest Plea Filed July , 2002.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|