court (1) sufficiently described the nature of the

charges, including the possible penalties; (2) informed the defendant of the right to repre- sentation; (3) informed the defendant of the rights waived by a guilty plea; and (4) obtained a factual basis for the plea. Reyna v. State, 2001 WY 105, 33 P.3d 1129, 2001 Wyo. LEXIS 131 (Wyo. 2001). In an action in which a defendant appealed from his convictions of two counts of felony conversion of grain in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 11-11-117(b) and one count of felony check fraud in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-3-702(a)(b)(iii), defendant failed to meet his burden of showing the district court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to with- draw his guilty plea where (1) the district court fully informed defendant concerning the maxi- mum penalties for the charged offenses and advised him no one could make him plead a certain way and if anyone tried to do so he should inform the court; (2) defendant was further specifically advised there were no guar- antees about sentencing; and (3) the district court’s imposition of a more severe penalty than defense counsel believed was appropriate and advised defendant was likely did not constitute manifest injustice. Reichert v. State, 2006 WY 62, 134 P.3d 268, 2006 Wyo. LEXIS 66 (Wyo. 2006). Delay in appeal bars review. — Where the appellant-defendant pled guilty to a charge of grand larceny and no appeal was then taken, but later a judgment and sentence was entered by the district court revoking probation and activating the original sentence, and on appeal defendant asserts that the trial judge erred in the prior guilty plea proceeding in failing to ascertain a factual basis for such a plea, the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to consider the judgment and sentence originally entered by the district court. Murphy v. State, 592 P.2d 1159, 1979 Wyo. LEXIS 395 (Wyo. 1979). Withdrawal of guilty plea where state did not keep agreement. — As defendant entered a guilty plea on the basis the state would recommend alternative sentencing, and the state did not make that recommendation at the sentencing hearing, the trial court erred in not granting defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea. Ford v. State, 2003 WY 65, 69 P.3d 407, 2003 Wyo. LEXIS 80 (Wyo. 2003). Compliance with the rule. — Trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss a charge of felony possession of a controlled sub- stance pursuant to the enhancement provisions of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-7-1031(c)(i) because defendant’s waiver of the right to counsel in a prior misdemeanor proceeding was knowing and intelligent; the advisements given in the prior proceeding complied with Wyo. R. Crim. P. 11(b). Craft v. State, 2011 WY 142, 262 P.3d 1253, 2011 Wyo. LEXIS 148 (Wyo. 2011).