Case Title: State v. Bowers

Citation: 426 N.W.2d 293

Docket Number: 880071

State: north-dakota

Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Date: 1988-07-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
426 N.W.2d 293 (1988) STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Richard Irvin BOWERS, Defendant and Appellant. Cr. No. 880071. Supreme Court of North Dakota. July 19, 1988. James Forster Twomey, Asst. States Atty., Fargo, for plaintiff and appellee, submitted on briefs. Richard Irvin Bowers, Bismarck, pro se. ERICKSTAD, Chief Justice. Defendant Richard Irvin Bowers appeals from a memorandum decision and order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We affirm. There are two distinct versions of the facts which led to Bowers' arrest on May 23, 1987. The State contends Bowers stabbed a stranger with a triangular shaped piece of broken glass and severely wounded the stranger in the neck. The victim, Richard Siedel, was a resident of the Donaldson Hotel located in downtown Fargo, North Dakota. According to Siedel, Bowers attacked him when he was leaving a bathroom inside the hotel. Siedel testified that he was preparing to go to work around 9:00 p.m., when Bowers, then a complete stranger, stabbed Siedel as he exited the bathroom. Bowers' version is as follows: While Bowers was incarcerated in a Cass County jail, Bowers' attorney received a telephone call from the Cass County Sheriff's office which indicated Bowers was having "nightmares, delusions and other unusual visions...." Based on this information Bowers' attorney requested and received an order for psychological evaluation of Bowers. A part of the request follows: While represented by counsel Bowers entered a plea of guilty to aggravated assault in violation of section 12.1-17-02, N.D.C.C.[1] The district court sentenced Bowers to five years in the State Penitentiary with the last year of the five-year sentence suspended. The conviction and sentence occurred on July 27, 1987. By letter dated September 7, 1987, Bowers requested a reduction of his sentence. The district court denied his request. By letter dated October 27, 1987, Bowers requested a new trial which was also denied by the district court. Bowers filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea on January 27, 1988. This motion was accompanied by a brief which alleged Bowers' attorney "did not perform his duties diligently." Bowers also alleged that his attorney "badgered and threatened him into entering a guilty plea." The district court reviewed Bowers' brief and supporting affidavit and concluded Bowers' motion to withdraw his guilty plea was based on two grounds: (1) Bowers was coerced into accepting a guilty plea, and (2) Bowers was denied effective assistance of counsel. We believe the district court properly denied Bowers' motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Rule 32(d), N.D.R.Crim.P.,[2] requires the trial court to allow the defendant to withdraw his plea of guilty whenever the defendant, upon a timely motion for withdrawal, proves that withdrawal is necessary to "correct a manifest injustice." The defendant has the burden of proving a manifest injustice or a fair and just reason *295 supporting withdrawal of the plea. State v. Millner, 409 N.W.2d 642, 643 (N.D.1987). In State v. Runck, 418 N.W.2d 262, 267 (N.D.1987), we suggested that a "manifest injustice" would occur when a defendant does not receive the sentence which is contemplated by the plea agreement. However, it is clear that Bowers received the sentence that he agreed to in his plea agreement. The district court decided that the following colloquy, which occurred at the time Bowers entered his plea of guilty, was strong evidence that Bowers was not coerced into accepting his guilty plea: Bowers also did not object to his counsel: In light of this exchange, we cannot conclude Bowers was coerced into accepting a guilty plea, especially as his allegation of coercion comes eleven months after he was asked whether or not he understood his plea and whether or not he was satisfied with his attorney. Bowers next asserts he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea because he was denied effective assistance of counsel. In State v. Ricehill, 415 N.W.2d 481, 485 (N.D.1987), we set forth a specific procedure for determining when claims of ineffective assistance of counsel should be considered on appeal. Because Bowers has raised the issue in his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to the district court, with a supporting affidavit and letters from his attorney which allegedly demonstrate ineffective assistance, we will, pursuant to Ricehill, supra, attempt to dispose of this contention on this appeal. We believe, however, that the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel could be more effectively determined through the Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act which provides for an evidentiary hearing. See Ch. 29-32.1, N.D.C.C.; Ricehill, supra at 484. In analyzing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, this Court utilizes the test established by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984). Ricehill, supra at 484; State v. Micko, 393 N.W.2d 741 (N.D.1986); State v. Patten, 353 N.W.2d 30 (N.D.1984). Under Strickland there are two things a convicted defendant must establish. First, the defendant must show that his trial counsel's representation "fell below an objective standard of reasonableness." 466 U.S. at 688, 104. S.Ct. at 2064. In establishing this objective standard, the defendant must overcome the "strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance." 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S. Ct. at 2065. Second, the defendant must establish that trial counsel's conduct was prejudicial to him: "The defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068. We conclude that Bowers has failed to prove his attorney's conduct fell below an *296 objective standard of reasonableness.[3] Bowers, now acting pro se, refers the Court to two letters from his attorney which allegedly indicate that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel. We quote the text of these two letters in full: The letter dated June 24, 1987, indicates Bowers' attorney examined police reports and could not find evidence to support Bowers' version of the facts. Moreover, Bowers' record, consisting of numerous convictions in four different states, was not likely to produce a lenient sentence if he were convicted following a trial. The offense of aggravated assault carries a maximum sentence of five years imprisonment plus a maximum five thousand dollar fine. Bowers received a five year sentence with the final year being suspended and he was not fined. We do not believe Bowers met his burden of proving that his counsel's conduct fell below an objective standard of reasonableness in light of the evidence against Bowers. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bowers' motion to withdraw his plea. State v. Millner, supra, 409 N.W.2d at 643; State v. DeCoteau, 325 N.W.2d 187, 190 (N.D.1982); State v. Mortrud, 312 N.W.2d 354, 359 (N.D.1981). Accordingly, the district court's order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea is affirmed. GIERKE and LEVINE, JJ., concur. VANDE WALLE, Justice, concurring in result. I concur in the result reached in the majority opinion. I am, however, concerned with the disposition of Bowers's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. In State v. Ricehill, 415 N.W.2d 481 (N.D. 1987), we cited with approval the procedures established in Read v. State, 430 So. 2d 832 (Miss.1983), for the review of ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims on *297 direct appeal from a judgment of conviction. Those procedures provide for reaching the merits of the ineffectiveness issue only where the record affirmatively shows ineffectiveness of constitutional dimensions or the parties stipulate that the record is adequate and the court determines that findings of fact by a trial judge able to consider the demeanor of witnesses, etc., are not needed. In other instances the defendant is permitted without prejudice to raise the ineffectiveness issue in an appropriate post-conviction proceeding. The posture of the case before us appears to be halfway between these procedures. There is no stipulation that the record is adequate. However, this is not a direct appeal from a judgment of conviction but rather is an appeal from an order denying a motion to withdraw a guilty plea. Thus Bowers had an opportunity to make at least a partial record on this issue in the trial court. On the other hand, as the majority opinion observes, the issue could be more effectively determined through the Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act which provides for an evidentiary hearing. I agree with the majority opinion that, on the record before us, Bowers was not denied effective assistance of counsel. However, I do not know what additional evidence might be forthcoming at a post-conviction hearing and therefore I do not construe the majority opinion to foreclose his opportunity to further advance that issue in a post-conviction proceeding if additional evidence can be adduced. See State v. Denney, 417 N.W.2d 181 (N.D.1987). MESCHKE, J., concurs. [1] Section 12.1-17-02, N.D.C.C., reads: "12.1-17-02. Aggravated assault. A person is guilty of a class C felony if that person: 1. Willfully causes serious bodily injury to another human being; 2. Knowingly causes bodily injury or substantial bodily injury to another human being with a dangerous weapon or other weapon, the possession of which under the circumstances indicates an intent or readiness to inflict serious bodily injury; 3. Causes bodily injury or substantial bodily injury to another human being while attempting to inflict serious bodily injury on any human being; or 4. Fires a firearm or hurls a destructive device at another human being." [2] Rule 32(d), N.D.R.Crim.P., reads: "(d) Plea Withdrawal. "(1) The court should allow the defendant to withdraw his plea of guilty whenever the defendant, upon a timely motion for withdrawal, proves that withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice. "(2) A motion for withdrawal is timely if made with due diligence, considering the nature of the allegations therein, and is not necessarily barred because made subsequent to judgment or sentence. "(3) In the absence of a showing that withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice, a defendant may not withdraw his plea of guilty as a matter of right once the plea has been accepted by the court. Before sentence, the court in its discretion may allow the defendant to withdraw his plea for any fair and just reason unless the prosecution has been substantially prejudiced by reliance upon the defendant's plea." [3] The defendant must prove both elements of the Strickland test. We may dispose of the issue by discussing only one of the elements. State v. Micko, 393 N.W.2d 741, 747 (N.D.1986); State v. Patten, 353 N.W.2d 30, 33 (N.D.1984).