State v. Rayas

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS ----ooOoo---State of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Olivio Rayas, Defendant and Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not For Official Publication) Case No. 20070372-CA F I L E D (August 7, 2008) 2008 UT App 300 ----Third District, Salt Lake Department, 061907215 The Honorable William W. Barrett Attorneys: Margaret P. Lindsay, Orem, and Patrick V. Lindsay, Provo, for Appellant Mark L. Shurtleff and Brett J. Delporto, Salt Lake City, for Appellee ----- Before Judges Greenwood, Thorne, and Billings. PER CURIAM: Olivio Rayas appeals the district court's order denying his motion to withdraw his plea. We affirm. "The denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard, incorporating a clearly erroneous standard for findings of fact made in conjunction with that decision." State v. Martinez, 2001 UT 12, ¶ 14, 26 P.3d 203. However, the question of whether the district court "strictly complied with the constitutional and procedural requirements for entry of a guilty plea is a question of law" that is reviewed for correctness. Id. Rayas asserts that the court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his plea because his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made. Specifically, Rayas claims that he did not understand the mandatory but indeterminate nature of his potential sentence when he entered his plea. The record demonstrates that during his plea hearing Rayas made several inquiries concerning his potential sentence of six-years to life. These inquiries focused on whether he could spend his entire life in prison and his belief that such a sentence was too long. The court responded to Rayas's inquiries by carefully explaining what an indeterminate sentence was, the potential duration of the sentence he could receive, and the role of the Board of Pardons in determining when Rayas would be released. After responding to all of Rayas's inquiries, the district court explained to Rayas that he did not have to sign the plea agreement; instead, he could contest the charges and proceed to trial. After hearing the district court's explanation of the nature of an indeterminate sentence, which clearly informed Rayas of the nature of the potential sentence he could receive, Rayas signed the plea agreement and entered his plea of guilty. Under the totality of the circumstances, we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion in finding that the plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily, and, as a result, in denying Rayas's motion to withdraw his plea. Affirmed. ______________________________ Pamela T. Greenwood, Presiding Judge ______________________________ William A. Thorne Jr., Associate Presiding Judge ______________________________ Judith M. Billings, Judge 20070372-CA 2

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.