Dist.Ct. did not err in denying defendant's pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea to five counts of bank fraud, arising out of scheme to deposit large checks from out-of-state banks into new in-state bank accounts, and then withdrawing said funds before bank discovered that there were insufficient funds in out-of-state bank accounts. Defendant may withdraw his guilty plea, where he has filed said motion prior to his sentencing hearing, and where defendant can show fair and just reason for doing so. Moreover, defendant asserted that he met said standard, since he had not been properly informed of all elements of bank fraud charge, and since govt. proved nothing more than he passed bad checks. However, Dist. Ct. could properly deny defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, since record showed that defendant was still represented by counsel at time he had filed his pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea, especially where said motion was filed two days prior to sentencing hearing after case had been pending for 21 months. Also, as to merits of withdrawal motion, record contained some evidence that defendant's scheme involved material misrepresentations by defendant to support entry of instant guilty plea on bank fraud charges.
