State v. Craig

Summary

The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the district court’s denial of Russell Frank Craig’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea and remanded for a hearing. The court held that, after the district court scheduled an oral argument, it abused its discretion by cancelling the hearing without giving Craig an opportunity to be heard. The court declined to reassign the case to a different judge on remand.

Holdings

1. The Supreme Court declined to decide whether the district court erred by permitting the State to respond more than fourteen days after Craig filed his motion because Craig did not raise the issue below.
2. The district court abused its discretion by cancelling the October 16, 2018 hearing without giving Craig an opportunity to be heard.
3. A party ordinarily cannot rely solely on another party's request for oral argument and must independently complete the Rule 3.2 hearing-request steps if the hearing has not otherwise been scheduled by the court. Here, however, the court's own scheduling and notice relieved Craig of that obligation.
4. Reassignment was not warranted because the district judge's alleged misapplication of the governing rules did not establish bias or the appearance of impropriety.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Craig's challenge to the State's late response was preserved for appellate review.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by cancelling a scheduled oral argument and denying Craig's motion to withdraw his guilty plea without giving him an opportunity to be heard.
3. Whether the case should be reassigned to a different district judge on remand based on alleged bias or the appearance of impropriety.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded