IN ORDER TO EXAMINE THE IMPLICATIONS AND ALTERNATIVES OF THE NEBRASKA SUPREME COURT'S RULING AGAINST THE RIGHT OF DEFENDANTS TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEAS REACHED PURSUANT TO PLEA BARGAINING, THE CASE OF STATE VERSUS EVANS (1975) IS DISCUSSED. ALTHOUGH NEBRASKA IS NOT THE ONLY STATE WHICH REQUIRES A SHOWING OF MANIFEST INJUSTICE FOR A PLEA TO BE WITHDRAWN AND WHICH ALLOWS THE TRIAL JUDGE NO DISCRETION, NEBRASKA IS SEPARATED FROM THE MAJORITY OF THE STATES AND FROM ALL OF THE FEDERAL COURTS IN THIS PRACTICE. THE EVANS HOLDING, WHICH DENIED A DEFENDANT THE RIGHT OF WITHDRAWAL AFTER THE TRIAL COURT ACCEPTED THE DEFENDANT'S PLEA OF NOLO CONTENDERE BUT INCREASED THE PRISON SENTENCE DECIDED ON DURING BARGAINING, WAS NOT BASED ON ANY CASE LAW, BUT MERELY RELIED ON THE STANDARDS OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION. IT IS FELT, HOWEVER, THAT THE ABA STANDARDS DO NOT RESTRICT PLEA WITHDRAWAL SOLELY TO CASES WHERE A MANIFEST INJUSTICE EXISTS. RATHER, THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD BE GIVEN THE DISCRETION TO DECIDE ON THE MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL BASED ON THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE. THE COURT IN EVANS MADE NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN PLEAS MADE PURELY VOLUNTARILY AND THOSE MADE AS A RESULT OF AN INDUCEMENT. THE ARGUMENT IS MADE FOR THE ADOPTION BY THE NEBRASKA COURTS OF A RULE SIMILAR TO THAT PROVIDED FOR UNDER THE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE WHICH STATE THAT A DEFENDANT MAY WITHDRAW A PLEA WHEN THE COURT REJECTS A PLEA AGREEMENT. THE USE OF SUCH A PROCEDURE IN SEVERAL STATES IS DISCUSSED. CASE LAW IS CITED. (TWK).