The court can abuse its discretion in denying a motion under Penal Code 1018 to withdraw a plea in a number of ways:

(1) The courts have emphasized that the discretion to deny a motion under
Penal Code 1018 is less broad than in other contexts, because this relief must be
liberally granted. Ibid. If the trial court failed to acknowledge or apply this presumption,
it applied an incorrect legal standard in deciding whether to grant the motion. A court
abuses its discretion by failing to employ the correct legal standard.

(2) If the court employs a flat rule of denying the motion whenever the defendant has received the deportation may result advice required by Penal Code 1016.5, this amounts to a refusal to exercise discretion. People v. Superior Court (Romero), 13 Cal.4th 497, 917 P.2d 628 (Jun. 20, 1996).

(3) The exercise of discretion requires a reasoned decision on what is just,
given the law as applied to the facts. If the court ignored the facts, by
adopting and applying a flat rule making a single fact " whether the defendant
received the 1016.5 advice " conclusive and ignoring all other facts, this also amounts to
failing to use the correct legal standard, which is an automatic abuse of discretion.

(4) The grounds for granting a motion under 1018 are a showing of
mistake, ignorance or any other factor overreaching defendants free and clear judgment. If the court in effect failed to employ this correct legal standard, by declaring that the defendants subjective state of mind was irrelevant, that constitutes an abuse of discretion.

The court also can abuse its discretion by giving decisive weight to a single factor, a floodgates possibility that had been considered, and rejected, in this context by both the United States and California Supreme Courts.