decision. To begin with, Hasson has never asserted his legal or factual innocence to the two counts to which he pleaded guilty. See Hamilton, 510 F.3d at 1214 (reasoning that a defendant may satisfy the first factor by asserting legal or factual innocence). He admitted to the factual basis underpinning those counts at his change of plea hearing, and he has not since repudiated that admission. See id. at 1215. To be sure, his plea withdrawal was premised not on an assertion of innocence but instead on a claim that he misunderstood his potential sentencing exposure. That is insufficient to the waste of the resources of the court and the potential for inconvenience to it, similai’ly favor denying withdrawal of the plea. See United States v. Graham, 466 F.3d 1234, 1239 (10th Cir. 2006) (<HOLDING>). Scheduling a last-minute trial in a complex
recognizing that these two factors trigger similar concerns recognizing similar duties recognizing same factors holding imposition of the death penalty proportionate where the trial court found two aggravating circumstances ccp and contemporaneous murder two statutory mitigating factors and a number of nonstatutory mitigating factors recognizing these five factors