State v. Macias-Medina
Annotate this CaseDefendant Mauricio Macias-Medina pled guilty to aggravated indecent liberties with a child pursuant to a plea agreement. After entering his plea but before sentencing, Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, contending that his attorney and his interpreter had coerced him into accepting the plea agreement. The district court denied Defendant's motion, determining that Defendant's pleas were knowingly and intelligently made and that they were not caused by dishonest interpretation of information or by coercion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding an absence of good cause to permit Defendant to withdraw his pleas.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.