State v. Dunn

Summary

The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed Stefan Renaldo Dunn’s criminal judgment and the denial of his request to withdraw his guilty plea. The court held that North Dakota Supreme Court Administrative Rule 52(4) was not violated because Dunn withdrew his request for confidential communication with remotely appearing counsel after the court offered to continue the hearing. The court also held that Dunn failed to establish a manifest injustice warranting withdrawal of his post-sentence guilty plea.

Holdings

1. The district court did not violate North Dakota Supreme Court Administrative Rule 52(4). The rule permitted the court to offer to continue the hearing so Dunn could communicate confidentially with counsel, and it did not prohibit Dunn from withdrawing his request after the court confirmed his decision multiple times.
2. A defendant may withdraw a guilty plea after sentencing only upon proving that withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice. Dunn failed to meet that burden.
3. Dunn's guilty plea was a voluntary and intelligent choice among available alternatives, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying withdrawal of the plea.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court violated North Dakota Supreme Court Administrative Rule 52(4) by offering to reschedule the plea hearing to permit confidential communication with remote counsel and by allowing Dunn to withdraw his request to communicate with counsel.
2. Whether Dunn established a manifest injustice requiring withdrawal of his guilty plea after sentencing under North Dakota Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d)(2).
3. Whether Dunn's guilty plea was involuntary or unintelligent because he believed he had no realistic alternative to pleading guilty while in custody and because he had potential defenses to present at trial.

Disposition

affirmed