Utah Court of Appeals

Can defendants orally move to withdraw guilty pleas at sentencing? State v. Peterson Explained

2008 UT App 304
No. 20080115-CA
August 14, 2008
Reversed

Summary

Peterson pleaded guilty to assault by a prisoner and sought to withdraw his plea at sentencing after reviewing the presentence report. The district court denied the motion, ruling that Peterson had waived his right by not filing a written motion prior to the sentencing hearing.

Analysis

In State v. Peterson, the Utah Court of Appeals clarified important procedural requirements for withdrawing guilty pleas, resolving confusion about timing and format requirements that can trap unwary defendants and counsel.

Background and Facts

Charles Brandon Peterson pleaded guilty to assault by a prisoner, a third-degree felony. At the change of plea hearing, the district court instructed Peterson that any motion to withdraw his guilty plea must be filed in writing prior to sentencing. When Peterson’s counsel attempted to make an oral motion to withdraw at the sentencing hearing after reviewing the presentence investigation report, the district court denied the motion, ruling that Peterson had waived his right by failing to file a written motion beforehand.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Utah Code section 77-13-6(2)(b) requires motions to withdraw guilty pleas to be filed in writing before sentencing hearings begin, or whether oral motions at the hearing satisfy the statutory requirements.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals reversed in a stipulated summary reversal. The court analyzed the plain language of section 77-13-6(2)(b), which requires motions to withdraw guilty pleas to be made “before sentence is announced” but contains no written filing requirement. The court also examined Rule 12(a) of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure, which permits oral motions “during a trial or hearing.” The court concluded that Peterson’s oral motion was both properly made and timely under the statute.

Practice Implications

This decision provides important guidance for criminal practitioners. Defense counsel can make oral motions to withdraw guilty pleas at sentencing hearings without prior written filings, provided the motion occurs before sentence announcement. Trial courts should either consider such oral motions on their merits or continue sentencing to allow written motion filing if preferred. The decision protects defendants’ rights while maintaining procedural clarity for practitioners.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

State v. Peterson

Citation

2008 UT App 304

Court

Utah Court of Appeals

Case Number

No. 20080115-CA

Date Decided

August 14, 2008

Outcome

Reversed

Holding

A motion to withdraw a guilty plea may be made orally at the sentencing hearing before the sentence is announced, and need not be filed in writing beforehand unless made outside of a hearing.

Standard of Review

Statutory interpretation reviewed for correctness

Practice Tip

When representing clients who may want to withdraw guilty pleas, remember that oral motions are permitted at hearings under Rule 12(a), and the statutory deadline is before sentence announcement, not before the hearing begins.

Need Appellate Counsel?

Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Related Court Opinions

    • Utah Court of Appeals

    Ahmad v. Graco Fishing

    May 5, 2022

    A Rule 60(b) motion must be filed within 28 days of the judgment to extend the time for appeal, and the court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief where the movant failed to properly establish pro se status despite attorney representation.
    • Appellate Procedure
    • |
    • Preservation of Error
    • |
    • Standard of Review
    Read More
    • Utah Supreme Court

    Acor v. Salt Lake City School District

    January 28, 2011

    A public employee acquitted of employment-related criminal charges is entitled to attorney fee reimbursement under the Reimbursement Statute when the charges arose from acts occurring during work hours and on work premises, regardless of evidence suggesting actual guilt.
    • Attorney Fees
    • |
    • Standard of Review
    • |
    • Statutory Interpretation
    Read More
About these Decision Summaries

Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.