§ 4.14.5 Pleas of Guilty and No Contest - Rule 17.
Plea Agreements; Generally. As a practical matter, because review of a plea agreement can only be appealed in the context of a Rule 32 post-conviction relief proceeding, the standards of review applicable there would normally be the standard applicable to all facets of an appeal from a guilty plea. See § 4.27. Generally, an appellate court reviews post-conviction relief matters using an abuse of discretion standard. See State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562, 567, ¶ 17, 146 P.3d 63, 67 (2006); State v. Falcone, 228 Ariz. 168, 170, ¶ 9, 264 P.3d 878, 880 (App. 2011).
Rule 17.3 - Voluntary, Knowing and Intelligent Plea. The correct standard of appellate review of a trial court’s decision concerning whether a plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent often depends on the context. For example, in State v. Brown, 210 Ariz. 534, 538, ¶ 7, 115 P.3d 128, 132 (App. 2005), aff’d in part, 212 Ariz. 225, 129 P.3d 947 (2006), the question arose in the context of a special action, and the court thus used an abuse of discretion standard. Moreover, whether a plea agreement was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent typically arises in the context of a motion to withdraw from a plea agreement, which also is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See discussion of Rule 17.5 below. See, e.g., State v. Diaz, 173 Ariz. 270, 272, 842 P.2d 617, 619 (1992).
However, regardless of the context, the appellate...
