In this case involving a motion to withdraw a plea and an MAR, the trial court did not err by denying the defendant’s motions.  On April 10, 2018 the defendant pleaded guilty to felony drug offenses, answering affirmatively that he understood the charges to which he was pleading and that he was in fact guilty of the charges.  On April 12, 2018 the defendant filed the motions at issue, alleging that he “felt dazed and confused” at the time of the plea because of lack of sleep and medications he was taking, did not understand that he was pleading to three felonies, did not understand what a consolidated judgment meant, did not have enough time to consider his plea and felt pressure to make a decision, and was not aware of the negative employment ramifications of his plea.  On April 16, the motions were heard in Superior Court, where the court made extensive findings of fact supporting its conclusion that the motions were without merit.  The defendant argued on appeal that the trial court erred because the circumstances demonstrated that withdrawal of his plea would prevent manifest injustice.  Specifically, the defendant argued that his plea should be withdrawn because he (1) is innocent, (2) pled guilty in haste, and (3) pled guilty in confusion based on erroneous beliefs about the nature of a consolidated judgment.  The court reviewed the record and, for reasons stated in the opinion, found each of these arguments meritless.