State v Martinez

1. The Honorable Judith M. Billings, Senior Judge, sat by special
appointment as authorized by law. See generally Utah Code Jud.
Admin. R. 11-201(6).
2014 UT App 153
_________________________________________________________
THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF UTAH,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
JOHNNY MARTINEZ JR.,
Defendant and Appellant.
Per Curiam Decision
No. 20130673-CA
Filed July 3, 2014
Third District Court, Salt Lake Department
The Honorable Katie Bernards-Goodman
No. 121907933
Nathalie S. Skibine and Andrea J. Garland,
Attorneys for Appellant
Sean D. Reyes and Brett J. DelPorto, Attorneys for Appellee
Before JUDGES GREGORY K. ORME, STEPHEN L. ROTH,
and SENIOR JUDGE JUDITH M. BILLINGS.1
PER CURIAM:
¶1 Johnny Martinez Jr. appeals his conviction of possession of
a controlled substance, arguing that the district court erred in
denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We affirm.

State v. Martinez
20130673-CA 2 2014 UT App 153
¶2 Martinez asserts that his plea was not knowing and volun-
tary because he did not take his medications on the day of the plea.
Further, he argues that the district court failed to perform an
adequate rule 11 colloquy that might have shown that he was
affected by the failure to take that medication. We review the
denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea for abuse of discretion.
State v. Knowlden, 2013 UT App 63, ¶ 2, 298 P.3d 691. Further, we
will overturn the district court’s findings of fact supporting its
decision only if they are clearly erroneous. Id.
¶3 Martinez fails to demonstrate that the district court abused
its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
Martinez had the burden of demonstrating that his plea was not
knowing and voluntary. See Utah Code Ann. § 77-13-6(2)(a)
(LexisNexis 2012) (stating that a guilty plea “may be withdrawn
only upon leave of the court and a showing that it was not
knowingly and voluntarily made”); State v. Alexander, 2012 UT 27,
¶ 24, 279 P.3d 371 (stating that the burden is on the defendant to
demonstrate that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily
made). However, the totality of Martinez’s argument was that he
failed to take two prescription drugs on the morning of the plea
and that failure made him very anxious. This argument was
insufficient to carry his burden of proof. Martinez offered no
evidence indicating that he had an actual prescription for the drugs
or the dosages for the medications. He offered no evidence as to the
symptoms the medications were supposed to alleviate. And he
offered no medical evidence as to the potential effect of missing one
dose of the medications. Such evidence was all the more important
because there was no indication at the change-of-plea hearing that
Martinez was in any way impaired. Accordingly, because Martinez
failed to carry the burden of demonstrating that his plea was not
knowingly and voluntarily made, the district court did not abuse
its discretion in denying the motion.
¶4 Affirmed.