Summary
The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the denial of Jimmie Lee Bates's motion to withdraw an Alford guilty plea to gross sexual imposition. The court held that the plea had a sufficient factual basis and was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered. The court also held that Bates failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Bates's pre-sentencing motion to withdraw his Alford plea on the ground that withdrawal was necessary to correct a manifest injustice.
- Whether the factual basis presented at the plea hearing was sufficient under N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(3) to support the guilty plea.
- Whether Bates's plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered.
- Whether Bates established ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal.
Holdings
- The district court properly determined that the State's factual rendition supplied a sufficient factual basis for Bates's guilty plea under N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(3).
- The district court did not err in finding that Bates knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered his guilty plea.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bates's motion to withdraw his guilty plea because withdrawal was not necessary to correct a manifest injustice.
- Bates failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal, without prejudice to raising the claim in a post-conviction proceeding.
Key quotations
“The decision whether a manifest injustice exists for withdrawal of a guilty plea lies within the trial court's discretion and will not be reversed on appeal except for an abuse of discretion.” (¶ 6)
“When determining the validity of a guilty plea, '[t]he longstanding test . . . is "whether the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant."'” (¶ 14)
“When a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel is argued on direct appeal, we review the record to decide if the assistance of counsel was plainly defective.” (¶ 19)
Factual background
Bates was charged with sexual offenses involving a child and later entered an Alford plea to an amended charge of gross sexual imposition. At the plea hearing, the State presented evidence that the child repeatedly identified Bates as having engaged in sexual contact with her, and Bates's counsel made only a minor correction concerning the duration of the alleged abuse. Bates initially acknowledged that he understood the proceedings and was satisfied with counsel, but before sentencing he sought to withdraw his plea because he maintained his innocence. He also claimed counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain or follow up on a private investigator's progress report and a possible alternative suspect.
Procedural history
Bates was originally charged with continuous sexual abuse of a child and promoting obscenity to minors. The State amended the information to charge one count of gross sexual imposition, and Bates entered an Alford plea. Before sentencing, he moved to withdraw the plea, asserting manifest injustice and maintaining his innocence. The district court denied the motion, later accepted the joint sentencing recommendation, and sentenced him to ten years' imprisonment concurrent with a prior felony sentence. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed.