to the Colorado Court of Appeals Court of Appeals Case No.
Attorneys for Petitioner: The Noble Law Firm, LLC Antony
Noble Lakewood, Colorado Meyer Law Office, P.C. Hans Meyer
Attorneys for Respondent: Cynthia H. Coffman, Attorney
General William G. Kozeliski, Assistant Attorney General
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae American Immigration Lawyers
Association Colorado Chapter: Lichter Immigration Mark R.
Barr Denver, Colorado Access Immigration, LLC Katharine S.
Speer Denver, Colorado
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Colorado Criminal Defense Bar:
Joseph Law Firm, P.C. Aaron C. Hall Aurora, Colorado
Attorney for Amici Curiae Colorado Legal Academics and the
National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild:
Christopher N. Lasch Denver, Colorado
¶1 Petitioner Jose Espino-Paez pled guilty to the use of
a schedule II controlled substance in 1996 and received a
deferred judgment. When he successfully completed the terms
of his deferred judgment, his guilty plea was withdrawn and
the charge was dismissed with prejudice.
In 2012, Espino-Paez filed a petition for postconviction
relief pursuant to Crim. P. 35(c) and in the alternative to
withdraw his guilty plea pursuant to Crim. P. 32(d). The
district court denied that motion, and the court of appeals
affirmed, holding that the district court had no authority to
withdraw the plea because it had already been withdrawn.
People v. Espino-Paez, 2014 COA 126M, ¶ 13,
__P.3d__, __ .
We granted Espino-Paez's petition for certiorari and now
affirm. For the reasons more fully articulated in People
v. Corrales-Castro, 2017 CO 60, P.3d, the lead case we
decide today,  we conclude that the plain language of
Crim. P. 32(d) requires that a "plea" exist in
order for it to be "withdraw[n]." Therefore, there
is nothing in the Rule that would authorize a district court
to withdraw an already-withdrawn plea. Because
Espino-Paez's plea had already been withdrawn and the
case dismissed with prejudice pursuant to section
18-1.3-102(2), C.R.S. (2016), there was no plea to be
withdrawn pursuant to Rule 32(d). Accordingly, we affirm the
court of appeals.
Espino-Paez pled guilty to the use of a schedule II
controlled substance in 1996. He received a deferred judgment
on the condition that he successfully complete drug and
alcohol treatment. He successfully completed the treatment,
and in October 1997 the district court ordered his guilty
plea withdrawn and dismissed the charge with prejudice.
In October 2012, Espino-Paez filed a petition for
postconviction relief pursuant to Crim. P. 35(c) and, in the
alternative, a motion to withdraw his guilty plea under ...