Summary
The Supreme Court of North Dakota held that Joseph M. Klein was entitled to withdraw his guilty plea as a matter of right because the court had deferred acceptance of the binding plea agreement and therefore had not accepted the plea. The court affirmed the denial of appointed counsel's motion to withdraw, concluding that the trial court had not abused its discretion. The case was reversed and remanded for entry of an order allowing withdrawal of the guilty plea.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Klein could withdraw his guilty plea as a matter of right because the district court had deferred acceptance of the binding plea agreement and plea.
- Whether the district court applied the correct standard when denying Klein's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying appointed counsel's motion to withdraw as counsel.
Holdings
- When a guilty plea is based on a binding plea agreement and the court defers acceptance or rejection of that agreement pending a presentence investigation, the plea has not been accepted. The defendant is therefore entitled to withdraw the plea as a matter of right.
- The district court erred by applying the manifest-injustice standard because the plea had not been accepted. Klein was entitled to withdraw the plea as a matter of right.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appointed counsel's motion to withdraw because the record showed no good cause for substitution and Klein repeatedly stated that he was satisfied with counsel's representation.
Key quotations
“The viability of the plea agreement controls the viability of the plea. If the former is subject to review of the presentence report, so is the latter. The plea agreement and the plea are `inextricably bound up together' such that deferment of the decision whether to accept the plea agreement carried with it postponement of the decision whether to accept the plea.” (¶ 19)
“Because the district court in this case clearly deferred acceptance of the plea agreement, the plea could not have been accepted. Klein was entitled to withdraw his plea as a matter of right, and the district court erred in denying his motion.” (¶ 21)
Factual background
Klein was charged with gross sexual imposition and initially pleaded not guilty. He later entered a guilty plea under a binding agreement providing for a maximum ten-year sentence, with four years suspended if he completed sex-offender treatment, concurrent with a sentence he was already serving. The district court stated that it would hold the guilty plea in abeyance and ordered a presentence investigation while reserving the ability to accept or reject the agreement. Before sentencing, Klein moved to withdraw his plea and to change attorneys.
Procedural history
Klein was charged with gross sexual imposition and entered a guilty plea pursuant to a binding plea agreement. The district court deferred acceptance of the plea agreement pending a presentence investigation, but later denied Klein's motion to withdraw the plea under the manifest-injustice standard and sentenced him pursuant to the agreement. The North Dakota Supreme Court held that the plea had not yet been accepted and remanded for entry of an order allowing withdrawal, while affirming the denial of counsel's withdrawal motion.
Remand instructions
Reverse the denial of Klein's motion to withdraw his guilty plea and remand for entry of an order allowing withdrawal of the guilty plea. The denial of the motion to withdraw as counsel is affirmed.