
    2017 CO 62
    Edgar ZAFIRO-GUILLEN, Petitioner, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Respondent.
    Supreme Court Case No. 15SC511
    Supreme Court of Colorado.
    June 5, 2017
    See also 2017 WL 2417301.
    Attorney for Petitioner: Ferdinand L. Torres, Denver, Colorado
    Attorneys for Respondent: Cynthia H. Coffman, Attorney General, William G. Koze-liski, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado
   JUSTICE EID

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Petitioner Edgar Zafiro-Guillen pled guilty to possession of one gram or less of a schedule II controlled substance in exchange for a two-year deferred judgment. In 2009, upon successful completion of the conditions of the deferred judgment, his plea was withdrawn and the ease was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to section 18-1.3-102(2), C.R.S. (2016).

¶2 In 2013, Zafiro-Guillen filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea pursuant to Crim. P. 32(d), alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the motion, holding it lacked jurisdiction. The court of appeals affirmed. People v. Zafiro-Guillen, No. 14CA534, slip op. at 1-5, 2015 WL 1299887 (Colo. App. Mar. 19, 2015).

¶3 We granted Zafiro-Guillen’s petition for certiorari and now affirm. For the reasons more fully articulated in People v. Corrales-Castro, 2017 CO 60, 395 P.3d 778, 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 Therefore, there is nothing in the Rule that would authorize a district court to withdraw an already-withdrawn plea. Because Zafiro-Guilleris plea had already been withdrawn and the case dismissed with prejudice pursuant to section 18-1.3-102(2), there was no plea to be withdrawn pursuant to Rule 32(d). Accordingly, we affirm the court of appeals.

I.

¶4 In April 2007, Zafiro-Guillen pled guilty to possession of one gram or less of a schedule II controlled substance in exchange for a two-year deferred judgment. In April 2009, upon successful completion of the terms of the deferred judgment, the district court withdrew Zafiro-Guülen’s guilty plea and dismissed the case with prejudice.

¶5 In 2013, Zafiro-Guillen filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea pursuant to Crim. P. 32(d), alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied his motion, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction because Zafiro-Guillen’s plea had already been withdrawn and his case had been dismissed with prejudice. The court of appeals affirmed. Zafiro-Guillen, slip op. at 1. We granted certio-rari and now affirm.

II.

¶6 For the reasons more fully articulated in the lead case People v. Corrales-Castro, we conclude Rule 32(d) does not authorize withdrawal of an already-withdrawn plea. Accordingly, we affirm the court of appeals.

JUSTICE GABRIEL does not participate. 
      
      . In addition to Corrales-Castro, we also decide the companion cases of Espino-Paez v. People, 2017 CO 61, 395 P.3d 786; Flores-Heredia v. People, 2017 CO 64, 395 P.3d 800; and People v. Roman, 2017 CO 63, 395 P.3d 799.
     
      
      .' We granted certiorari to review the following issue; "Whether the court should allow withdrawal of the guilty plea entered by the petitioner, who successfully completed the terms and conditions of a deferred judgment, under Crim. P. 32(d) when it was entered as a result of ineffective assistance of counsel.”
     