constitute deficient performance.” Hayes, 143 Idaho at 93, 137 P.3d at 480. The district court correctly found that Hayes’s counsel’s performance in this regard was insufficient. Hayes cites a number of eases discussing a defendant’s right to withdraw his guilty plea if he did not understand the consequences of the plea, including State v. Heredia, 144 Idaho 95, 156 P.3d 1193 (2007) (permitting de fendant to withdraw guilty plea when he had not been informed that he would be required to pay child support for the victim’s children); Colyer, 98 Idaho at 36, 557 P.2d at 630 (saying that when record does not indicate that defendant understood the possible consequences of his plea, his plea must be set aside). See also State v. Gardner, 126 Idaho 428, 432, 885 P.2d 1144, 1148 (Ct.App.1994) (<HOLDING>). He therefore argues that because he was not
recognizing that where a defendant enters a plea to a crime without having been informed of the crimes elements  the plea is invalid  holding that a defendants guilty plea is not knowingly made and is hence constitutionally invalid and subject to reversal on habeas if it is based upon erroneous sentencing information provided by the judge recognizing that where a guilty plea is shown to be constitutionally invalid leave to withdraw the plea is constitutionally mandated holding that a defendant who is allowed to withdraw his plea must either withdraw his plea to all charges or to none when his plea to all charges was part of an agreement with the state holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to withdraw guilty plea filed three weeks after entering the plea