Gibbons, "it is not clear whether the harmless error doctrine continues to apply to rule 11 violations." Id. 11 69 We now resolve this uncertainty and make clear that the state of the law following Gibbons and before the language in subsection (F) was added to rule 11 is that the harmless error standard does not apply to a trial court's failure to strictly comply with rule li(e). Because harmless error review does not apply, a defendant with a preserved rule l1(e) claim of error during this time period may demonstrate good cause to withdraw a guilty plea by merely showing the trial court failed to strictly comply with rule l1(e). We conclude that this rule is consistent with our post-Gibbons decisions and with the purpose of rule 11. See State v. Thurman, 911 P.2d 371, 375 (Utah 1996) (<HOLDING>); Maguire II, 830 P.2d at 217 (affirming the
holding that trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider defendants motion to withdraw guilty plea filed beyond term of court in which defendant was sentenced holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendants request to withdraw his plea although the accused claimed the report contained factually inaccurate material 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 the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendants motion to withdraw his guilty plea because the defendant did not admit to facts demonstrating the required mental 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