Case Title: State v. Werre

Citation: 325 N.W.2d 172

Docket Number: 829, 831

State: north-dakota

Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Date: 1982-10-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
325 N.W.2d 172 (1982) STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Bill WERRE, Defendant and Appellant. Cr. Nos. 829, 831. Supreme Court of North Dakota. October 20, 1982. *173 Rolf P. Sletten, Asst. State's Atty., Bismarck, for plaintiff and appellee; argued by Mr. Sletten. Vinje Law Firm, Bismarck, for defendant and appellant; argued by Richard G. Carver, Bismarck. ERICKSTAD, Chief Justice. Defendant/Appellant, Bill Werre, asserts that he is appealing from a denial of his motions for withdrawal of guilty plea and for reduction of sentence entered in the District Court of Burleigh County. However, his appeal is actually from a January 27, 1982, order denying his motion for withdrawal of guilty plea and for withdrawal of the admission of probation violation. Werre has not appealed from the order denying his motion for reduction of sentence dated December 18, 1979. Inasmuch as the motion to withdraw the admission of probation violation is so connected with the motion for withdrawal of guilty plea, we will do as counsel have done and refer hereinafter only to the motion to withdraw the plea of guilty. We affirm. On August 21, 1981, Werre plead guilty to a charge of theft by deception in the District Court of Burleigh County. The court sentenced Werre to serve a term of eight years, four of which were suspended, at the State Penitentiary. At this hearing, Werre also admitted that he had violated the conditions of his probation from a prior conviction. Hence, the court revoked his probation and ordered that he serve the unexpired portion of his sentence. The sentences were to be served concurrently. On December 16, 1981, Werre filed a motion for reduction of sentence and on December 17, 1981, Werre filed a motion for withdrawal of guilty plea. The district court denied Werre's motions. Prior to our adjudicating the merits of this appeal, we must first consider Werre's motion for remand on the basis of newly discovered evidence which allegedly further supports his motion for withdrawal of guilty plea. Werre contends that this evidence will prove his innocence. However, the issue of a defendant's guilt or innocence is not involved in an application for leave to withdraw a plea of guilty.[1]*174 Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S. 220, 224, 47 S. Ct. 582, 583, 71 L. Ed. 1009, 1012 (1927); Friedman v. United States, 200 F.2d 690, 696 (8th Cir. 1953); Rachel v. United States, 61 F.2d 360, 362 (8th Cir. 1932); People v. Zaleski, 375 Mich. 71, 77, 133 N.W.2d 175, 181 (1965). Therefore, we deny Werre's motion requesting a remand. In so holding we do not intend to preclude Werre from pursuing post-conviction relief pursuant to Section 29-32-01(1)(d).[2] On appeal, the sole issue to be determined is whether or not the district court abused its discretion by denying Werre's motion to withdraw his guilty plea and to reduce his sentence. Werre alleges that the district court erred because he was coerced into entering a plea of guilty to the charge of theft by deception. The crux of Werre's claim is that he plead guilty in exchange for the State foregoing prosecution of his mother on a separate charge. The withdrawal of a guilty plea after sentence is governed by Rule 32(d), North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure, which states: Thus, the standard to be utilized by this court with regard to withdrawal of a guilty plea subsequent to sentence is that of "manifest injustice". A defendant seeking to withdraw his guilty plea bears the burden of proof and adjudication of the issue is solely within the trial court's discretion. Sherburne v. United States, 433 F.2d 1350 (8th Cir. 1970); Byes v. United States, 402 F.2d 492 (8th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1121, 89 S. Ct. 999, 22 L. Ed. 2d 126 (1969); Oksanen v. United States, 362 F.2d 74 (8th Cir. 1966); Stidham v. United States, 170 F.2d 294 (8th Cir. 1948). Therefore, on appeal, the only question to be determined is whether or not the court abused its discretion. In State v. Hamann, 262 N.W.2d 495, 501 (N.D.1978), we enunciated the following standard: In determining whether or not the court abused its discretion, we regard as significant the unequivocal responses of Werre to direct questions asked of him by the district court when he entered his guilty plea. The pertinent parts of Werre's testimony follow: It is evident that the district court endeavored to learn whether or not anyone had coerced or promised Werre anything in return for his guilty plea. When a court has made specific inquiries as to any threats or promises, a defendant's burden of proving a "manifest injustice" will be increased. ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, Vol. 3, 14.56 (2d ed. 1980). In the case at bar, the court also considered the testimony of Thomas Tuntland, Donald Holloway, and John Olson to be of substantial import. In response to questions from the Assistant States Attorney Rolf Sletten, Thomas Tuntland testified as follows: Donald Holloway testified in response to questions from Mr. Sletten as follows: John Olson testified in response to questions by Mr. Sletten as follows: As the record clearly supports the district court's denial of Werre's motion for withdrawal of guilty plea, we find no abuse of discretion.[3] As both counsel for Werre and for the State assume that an appeal has been taken from the order denying the motion for a reduction in the sentence, we will refer briefly to that issue. In State v. Sheldon, 312 N.W.2d 367, 371 (N.D.1981), we delineated the standard to be utilized in determining whether or not a trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion for reduction of sentence under Rule 35, N.D.R.Crim.P.: *177 See, also, State v. Hass, 268 N.W.2d 456, 464 (N.D.1978); State v. Rudolph, 260 N.W.2d 13, 16 (N.D.1977); State v. Smith, 238 N.W.2d 662, 673 (N.D.1976). Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion where Werre has not alleged and the district court has not relied on any impermissible factors or imposed a sentence exceeding the statutory limits. We therefore affirm the district court's denial of the motion for withdrawal of guilty plea under Rule 32(d), N.D.R.Crim.P., and the motion for withdrawal of admission of probation violation. VANDE WALLE, PEDERSON, PAULSON and SAND, JJ., concur. [1] The issue for determination is whether the plea of guilty was voluntarily, advisedly, intentionally and understandingly entered, or if it was, at the time of its entry, attributable to fraud, fear, ignorance, inadvertence or mistake such as would justify the court in concluding that it ought not to be permitted to stand. United States v. Marcus, 213 F.2d 230, 232 (7th Cir. 1954); Friedman v. United States, 200 F.2d 690, 696 (8th Cir. 1953); Williams v. United States, 192 F.2d 39, 40 (5th Cir. 1951); Rachel v. United States, 61 F.2d 360, 362 (8th Cir. 1932). See, also, ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, Vol. 3, 14.56 (2d ed. 1980). [2] "29-32-01. RemedyTo whom available Conditions. "1. Any person who has been convicted of, or sentenced for, a crime and who claims: * * * * * * d. That there exists evidence of material facts, not previously presented and heard, that requires vacation of the conviction or sentence in the interest of justice; * * * * * * may institute, without paying a filing fee, a proceeding under this chapter to secure relief." [3] The record indicates that Thomas Tuntland was Werre's attorney, that Donald Holloway apparently was Werre's mother's attorney, and that John Olson was the attorney for the State at the time of Werre's initial plea of guilty in this case.