Court Opinion

ID: 9407498
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-07 16:07:14.615676+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:38.776423
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                       IN THE OFFICE OF THE
                                                                    CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
                                                                            JULY 7, 2022
                                                                     STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                  IN THE SUPREME COURT
                  STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                                2023 ND 121

State of North Dakota,                                  Plaintiff and Appellee
      v.
Charles Deverek Brame,                               Defendant and Appellant

                                No. 20230024

Appeal from the District Court of Richland County, Southeast Judicial District,
the Honorable Bradley A. Cruff, Judge.

REMANDED.

Opinion of the Court by Jensen, Chief Justice.

Megan E. Kummer, State’s Attorney, Wahpeton, ND, for plaintiff and appellee;
submitted on brief.

Laura C. Ringsak, Bismarck, ND, for defendant and appellant; submitted on
brief.
                                State v. Brame
                                 No. 20230024

Jensen, Chief Justice.

[¶1] Charles Brame appeals from a criminal judgment of conviction for two
counts of sexual assault. Brame argues the district court failed to abide by Rule
11 of the North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure and was biased in
sentencing him. We retain jurisdiction and remand to provide the State an
opportunity to file any relevant transcripts which may show the district court
substantially complied with Rule 11.

                                        I

[¶2] Brame was charged with two counts of sexual assault. At the pretrial
conference, Brame pled guilty to both counts of sexual assault. The district
court accepted Brame’s guilty pleas finding the pleas were made voluntarily
and knowingly. Brame was then sentenced according to the joint sentencing
recommendation. Brame now appeals, arguing the court failed to abide by
N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(b) and was biased in sentencing him.

[¶3] On appeal, Brame provided a transcript limited to the hearing during
which he changed his pleas to guilty. The State requested this Court grant
additional time to file its brief to provide the State with an opportunity to
produce transcripts from additional proceedings to establish, if necessary,
substantial compliance with N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(b).

                                       II

[¶4] Brame argues the district court violated N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(b) by failing
to inform him of the rights under Rule 11(b)(1). Rule 11(b)(1) is as follows:

      (1) The court may not accept a plea of guilty without first, by
      addressing the defendant personally [except as provided in Rule
      43(b)] in open court, informing the defendant of and determining
      that the defendant understands the following:
            (A) the right to plead not guilty, or having already so pleaded,
            to persist in that plea;
            (B) the right to a jury trial;

                                        1
            (C) the right to be represented by counsel at trial and at
            every other stage of the proceeding and, if necessary, the
            right to have the counsel provided under Rule 44;
            (D) the right at trial to confront and cross-examine adverse
            witnesses, to be protected from compelled self-incrimination,
            to testify and present evidence, and to compel the attendance
            of witnesses;
            (E) the defendant’s waiver of these trial rights if the court
            accepts a plea of guilty;
            (F) the nature of each charge to which the defendant is
            pleading;
            (G) any maximum possible penalty, including imprisonment,
            fine, and mandatory fee;
            (H) any mandatory minimum penalty;
            (I) the court’s authority to order restitution; and
            (J) that, if convicted, a defendant who is not a United States
            citizen may be removed from the United States, denied
            citizenship, and denied admission to the United States in the
            future.

N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(1). Rule 11 provisions are “mandatory and substantial
compliance is required to ensure a defendant knowingly and voluntarily enters
a guilty plea.” State v. Yost, 2018 ND 157, ¶ 17, 914 N.W.2d 508. However, Rule
11 does not require any ritualistic, predetermined formality by the trial court.
State v. Farrell, 2000 ND 26, ¶ 9, 606 N.W.2d 524.

[¶5] Brame concedes he did not challenge in the district court the court’s
compliance with Rule 11 nor did he move to withdraw his guilty pleas. We do
not address issues not raised in the district court, unless the alleged error
arises to the level of obvious error affecting substantial rights under
N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b). State v. Murphy, 2014 ND 202, ¶ 6, 855 N.W.2d 647.
“Under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52, any error, defect, irregularity or variance that does
not affect substantial rights must be disregarded.” State v. Hoehn, 2019 ND
222, ¶ 20, 932 N.W.2d 553 (cleaned up). To prove obvious error, a defendant
must show (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights. Id.
(quoting State v. Blurton, 2009 ND 144, ¶ 8, 770 N.W.2d 231).

                                         2
[¶6] On the record before us, Brame is able to demonstrate a potential error,
because the district court did not strictly comply with Rule 11 at the pretrial
conference when his pleas of guilty were accepted. Rule 11(b)(1) requires the
court advise the defendant of their rights before the court may accept a guilty
plea. Before accepting Brame’s guilty pleas, the court confirmed Brame’s guilty
pleas were made “voluntary and knowing.” The court failed to advise Brame of
any of the rights under Rule 11(b)(1) before accepting the pleas. Failing to
advise a defendant of the rights under Rule 11(b)(1) before accepting a guilty
plea is potentially an error. Hoehn, 2019 ND 222, ¶ 22.

[¶7] Next, Brame must show the error was plain. “A ‘plain’ error is a ‘clear’ or
‘obvious’ deviation from current law.” State v. Landrus, 2022 ND 107, ¶ 10, 974
N.W.2d 676. Rule 11 requires the district court to personally advise the
defendant of the Rule 11 requirements before accepting a guilty plea.
N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(1). The court failed to advise Brame of any of the rights
provided under Rule 11 before accepting Brame’s pleas of guilty. This is a clear
deviation from the requirements of Rule 11 and constitutes plain error.

[¶8] Finally, to establish obvious error, Brame must show the error, which
was plain, affected his substantial rights. Hoehn, 2019 ND 222, ¶ 24. “If an
error does not affect the defendant’s substantial rights, then it must be
disregarded.” Id. (citing N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(a)). On the current record provided,
Brame has shown his substantial rights were affected, because he was not
properly informed of the requirements of Rule 11 before the district court
accepted his pleas of guilty. See State v. Vandehoven, 2009 ND 165, ¶ 25, 772
N.W.2d 603 (reversed and remanded because the district court failed to address
several of the requirements under N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(2)).

[¶9] Brame has provided this Court with a limited portion of the record.
Specifically, he provided only the transcript of the hearing during which he
changed his pleas to guilty, and no other transcripts from other proceedings in
the case. We have previously determined that if the district court advised the
defendant of the Rule 11 requirements at a hearing prior to the hearing during
which a guilty plea is accepted, the court substantially complied with Rule 11
and therefore the defendant’s substantial rights were not affected. Hoehn, 2019

                                       3
ND 222, ¶ 25. The State requested, but was denied by this Court, additional
time to produce transcripts of proceedings prior to the change of plea hearing
which may establish substantial compliance with Rule 11.

[¶10] Brame’s failure to raise the issue in the district court coupled with this
Court’s denial of the State’s request to produce transcripts of the earlier
proceedings has effectively denied the State an opportunity to demonstrate the
court substantially complied with Rule 11. In order to prove substantial
compliance, the State may show Brame was advised of the Rule 11
requirements at any previous hearing. We conclude it is necessary to provide
the State an opportunity to demonstrate substantial compliance with
N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(b).

                                     III

[¶11] Brame asserts the district court was biased in sentencing him. “A judge
is presumed by law to be unbiased and not prejudiced.” State v. Vickerman,
2022 ND 184, ¶ 23, 981 N.W.2d 881 (quoting State v. Jacobson, 2008 ND 73,
¶ 6, 747 N.W.2d 481). Brame provides no legal argument or factual support as
to how the court was biased and thus has waived this issue. See State v. Smith,
2023 ND 82, ¶ 28, 989 N.W.2d 490 (when a party fails to provide supporting
argument for an issue listed in the brief, the party is deemed to have waived
that issue). We conclude his assertion of bias is without merit.

                                      IV

[¶12] The district court failed to comply with the requirements of
N.D.R.Crim.P. 11 during the hearing when Brame changed his pleas to guilty.
However, because we allow district courts to substantially comply with Rule 11
by advising a defendant of the Rule 11 requirements at a previous hearing, we
retain jurisdiction under N.D.R.App.P. 35(a)(3)(B) and remand this case to
provide the State with an opportunity to file transcripts of previous hearings
to show substantial compliance with Rule 11.

                                       4
[¶13] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
      Daniel J. Crothers
      Lisa Fair McEvers
      Jerod E. Tufte
      Douglas A. Bahr

                            5