withdraw his plea. Defense counsel’s testimony that defendant was uncertain as to whether to plead guilty until the very last moment, defendant’s son’s testimony that defendant stated that he was pleading guilty to avoid jail, and defendant’s advanced age and poor health, all support a finding that defense counsel’s gross miseharaeterization of the likely sentencing range could have motivated defendant to plead guilty. The district court, however, incorrectly believed that it did not have discretion to permit defendant to withdraw his plea unless defendant proved actual prejudice. The district court’s unduly narrow view of its discretion requires us to vacate the denial of defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea. See United States v. Ruiz, 257 F.3d 1030, 1033 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). In Ortega-Ascanio and Garcia, we determined
holding that a district courts application of the wrong legal standard on a motion to withdraw a plea constitutes an abuse of discretion holding that district court abused discretion in denying motion to withdraw plea based on intervening supreme court decision that may have rendered factual basis of plea insufficient holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to withdraw guilty plea filed three weeks after entering the plea holding that lower courts application of a some effort standard was an abuse of discretion holding a motion to withdraw a guilty plea and grant trial is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and the supreme court will not upset the courts ruling unless there is a sufficient showing of abuse of discretion