a "fair and just reason" for granting a withdrawal, but that under the amended version, a defendant must show "the plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). [ 12 We therefore conclude that Harvey's own misunderstanding of his criminal history did not render his plea involuntary and unknowing because he was informed of the potential sentencing consequences of his plea-whatever his criminal history might reveal. In other words, Harvey was advised by his counsel, his plea affidavit, and the judge that the maximum punishment he could receive (other than a fine) was a sentence of zero-to-five years in prison. Harvey has not persuaded us that Utah law requires more. See, e.g., State v. Candland, 2013 UT 55, ¶ 13, 309 P.3d 230 (<HOLDING>); State v. Alexander, 2012 UT 27, ¶ 23, 279
holding that a guilty plea must be both knowing and voluntary and must be a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action available to a defendant holding that guilty plea is voluntary and knowing only if defendant understands the range of allowable punishment that will result from his plea holding that a guilty plea is voluntary and knowing only if the defendant understands the range of allowable punishment holding that a defendant must have knowledge of the likely consequences of entering the guilty plea in order for a plea to be voluntary and knowing holding that the defendants guilty plea was valid where the district court carefully questioned the defendant about whether he understood the consequences of his guilty plea