to the Colorado Court of Appeals Court of Appeals Case No.
Attorneys for Petitioner: Cynthia H. Coffman, Attorney
General William G. Kozeliski, Assistant Attorney General
Attorney for Respondent: Ferdinand L. Torres Denver, Colorado
¶1 In 2006, respondent Eloisa Roman pled guilty to
criminal impersonation and received a two-year deferred
judgment. In 2008, she successfully completed her deferred
judgment and her plea was withdrawn and the case was
dismissed. In 2013, she filed a motion under Crim. P. 32(d)
seeking to withdraw her plea based on an allegation of
ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied her
motion, reasoning that there was no plea to withdraw under
Rule 32(d). The court of appeals reversed, holding that Rule
32(d) authorized the district court to withdraw Roman's
previously-withdrawn plea. People v. Roman, No.
14CA524, slip op. at 1
June 18, 2015).
We granted the People's petition for certiorari and now
reverse. 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to withdraw an already-withdrawn plea.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 Roman'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plea had already been withdrawn and the case dismissed with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there was no plea to be withdrawn pursuant to Rule 32(d).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 reverse the court of appeals.
On November 14, 2006, Roman pled guilty to criminal
impersonation and received a two-year deferred judgment. In
December 2007, Roman's probation officer requested that
her status be changed to unsupervised, and the court approved
the request on January 7, 2008. The plea was withdrawn and
the case was dismissed in November 2008.
On December 19, 2013, Roman filed a motion asking the
district court to withdraw her plea pursuant to Crim. P.
32(d), alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial
court denied the motion, reasoning that there was no plea to
withdraw under Rule 32(d). The court of appeals reversed,
concluding that Rule 32(d) authorized the trial court to
withdraw her previously-withdrawn plea. Roman, slip
op. at 1. We granted certiorari and now reverse the court of
For the reasons more fully articulated in the lead case
People v. Corrales-Castro, we conclude that Rule
32(d) does not authorize withdrawal of an ...