Background
Donald Workman pleaded guilty on March 31, 2021, in the Circuit Court of Mingo County to two counts of third-degree sexual assault and two counts of sexual abuse by a parent, guardian, custodian, or person in a position of trust. Under the plea agreement, the State dismissed six additional sexual offense counts and recommended an effective sentence of eleven to twenty-five years. During the plea colloquy, Workman confirmed he was acting voluntarily, had not been coerced, and believed himself to be guilty, providing a factual basis that included vaginal penetration and oral sex acts against the minor victim in his custody.
At a sentencing hearing in May 2021—nearly 50 days after entry of the plea—Workman’s retained counsel notified the court that Workman wished to fire her and withdraw his guilty plea, claiming he had not understood what he had pled to or the consequences of the plea. The court allowed him to obtain new counsel, which created a conflict of interest requiring appointment of a special judge. Workman’s new counsel filed a written motion to withdraw approximately 100 days after the plea was entered, arguing that Workman had been pressured by prior counsel, had not reviewed the State’s evidence before pleading, and had maintained his innocence. Workman also submitted videos he claimed showed the victim recanting her allegations, though he acknowledged he had been aware of at least one such video at the time he entered his plea.
The circuit court denied the motion on October 7, 2021, finding the motion untimely, the justification for delay insufficient, the claim of maintained innocence undercut by the plea itself, and the recantation videos insufficient to tip the balance in Workman’s favor. The court sentenced Workman to eleven to twenty-five years of imprisonment and subsequently resentenced him on August 21, 2023, for purposes of appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the circuit court’s denial of the motion to withdraw the guilty plea, finding no abuse of discretion. Applying the totality-of-the-circumstances test from State v. Page, No. 23-469, 2026 WL 1382897 (W. Va. May 18, 2026), and the innocence-specific factors from Duncil v. Kaufman, 183 W. Va. 175, 394 S.E.2d 870 (1990), the court concluded that Workman failed to demonstrate a “fair and just reason” to support withdrawal of his plea under Rule 32(e) of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The court found the delay of roughly 100 days before filing the written motion was untimely and that Workman bore significant responsibility for it, having fired both appointed and retained counsel before eventually hiring new counsel—then waiting another month and a half to file. The court further held that Workman could not credibly claim he maintained his innocence throughout the proceedings given that he explicitly stated during the plea colloquy that he was guilty and had not been coerced. Finally, the court determined that the victim’s alleged recantation videos did not tip the scales in Workman’s favor, particularly because he knew of at least one video when he chose to plead guilty, weakening any basis for post-plea withdrawal premised on that evidence.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant has no absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea before sentencing; withdrawal is permitted only upon a showing of a “fair and just reason” under W. Va. R. Crim. P. 32(e), and circuit courts retain broad discretion in evaluating such motions.
- Courts weigh a non-exhaustive set of factors including voluntariness, assertion of innocence, timeliness of the motion, competence of prior counsel, and prejudice to the government; no single factor is controlling.
- Where a defendant was aware of an alleged basis for withdrawal (such as exculpatory evidence) at the time of the plea but pleaded guilty anyway, that prior knowledge significantly undermines the later motion to withdraw.
- Delays in filing a motion to withdraw—particularly where the defendant contributed to those delays by repeatedly changing counsel—weigh against granting withdrawal, even when sentencing has not yet occurred.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that a thorough and properly conducted plea colloquy provides strong insulation against subsequent withdrawal attempts. When a defendant confirms on the record that the plea is voluntary, that no coercion occurred, and that he believes himself guilty, courts will hold him to those statements absent compelling justification—even where the defendant later produces evidence he claims is exculpatory.
For defense practitioners, the case underscores the importance of ensuring clients have reviewed the State’s evidence and considered all available defenses before entering a plea. Workman’s knowledge of a potential recantation video at the time of his plea—combined with his decision to plead guilty regardless—proved fatal to his later argument for withdrawal. The decision also signals that self-inflicted delays caused by firing successive counsel will not excuse an otherwise untimely withdrawal motion.