Defendant appealed the denial of her motion to withdraw her guilty plea. Defendant was indicted in 2005 for arson, theft and conspiracy to commit arson and theft. She pled guilty to the conspiracy charge, entered PTI, successfully completed it in 2007 and all charges were dismissed. She moved to withdraw her guilty plea in 2021 but not to vacate her PTI program completion and the dismissal of all charges. She asserted she did not understand the legal definition of "conspiracy" when she pled guilty and she now realized she did not engage in criminal activity. She was also unaware of the possible collateral consequences to a guilty plea. Trial court found there was an adequate factual basis for her plea when she admitted she agreed her brother would illegally dispose of her car and, when she learned the car had been burned, she reported it stolen. Trial court applied the post-sentence manifest injustice standard and the four-factor analytical paradigm in State v. Slater, 198 N.J. 145. Defendant argued her guilty plea was not supported by an adequate factual basis. Court affirmed trial court because defendant sought a remedy not authorized for a plea withdrawal motion, the retention of her PTI program completion and the withdrawal of all charges, and agreed her plea was supported by an adequate factual basis.