competent, and the proceedings moved forward. Harvey argues that the district court committed plain error in failing to grant his motion to withdraw his. plea because of Harvey's "marginal competency" and that his counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to move to withdraw his plea on the same ground. 117 "The same standard applies to both a determination of competency to plead guilty and a determination of competency to stand trial." State v. Arguelles, 2003 UT 1, ¶ 50 n. 11, 63 P.3d 731. The district court's determination that Harvey was competent to stand trial was therefore also a determination that Harvey was competent to plead no contest. See id. Harvey argues that a finding of incompetency by one of the psychiatrists was sufficient reaso 1th Cir.2001) (per cu-riam) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Michlin, 34 F.3d 896, 899
holding defendant cannot waive claims of an illegal sentence a sentence violating terms of plea agreement an unknowing and involuntary plea and ineffective assistance of counsel holding that an inaccurate sentencing estimate did not render a plea unknowing unintelligent or involuntary because the defendant was informed of the statutory maximum holding an attorneys mistaken prediction about a possible sentence does not render a defendants plea unknowing and involuntary holding that ineffective assistance can render a guilty plea involuntary holding that a defense attorneys failure to uncover a defendants prior felony convictions and the attorneys inaccurate sentencing prediction did not render the defendants plea unknowing and involuntary because the defendant knew at the time he pleaded guilty what his sentence might be