Can Utah courts deny a continuance for plea withdrawal when defendants have already been given months to prepare? State v. Edwards Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals in State v. Edwards addressed the limits of a defendant’s right to additional time for preparing plea withdrawal motions, clarifying when trial courts may properly deny continuance requests.

Background and Facts

Edwards pled no contest to aggravated assault in February 2020. At his August 2020 sentencing hearing, his counsel informed the court that Edwards had discussed potentially withdrawing his plea. The court granted a seven-week continuance, which ultimately stretched to four months due to health issues and COVID-19 delays. At the December 2020 sentencing hearing, Edwards’s counsel requested an additional 24-hour continuance to prepare a written motion to withdraw the plea, claiming he had only learned of Edwards’s specific intent that morning.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two issues: (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the 24-hour continuance request, and (2) whether the court erred by failing to make findings about alleged inaccuracies in the presentence investigation report.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the continuance, distinguishing State v. Ferretti, which established that defendants must be given “a reasonable amount of time” to prepare written plea withdrawal motions. Unlike in Ferretti, Edwards had already been given four months to confer with counsel about plea withdrawal. The court emphasized that Edwards’s plea agreement explicitly stated that any withdrawal motion must be filed “before sentence is announced.” However, the court reversed on the PSR issue, finding the trial court erred by failing to resolve contested inaccuracies as required by Utah Code § 77-18-1(6)(a).

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that while defendants have a right to adequate time for plea withdrawal preparation, courts need not grant additional continuances when defendants have already been afforded months to consider their options. Practitioners should advise clients to make timely decisions during any granted continuances and prepare necessary motions promptly. Additionally, courts must make specific findings when resolving contested information in presentence reports.