Court Opinion

ID: 9896039
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-09 15:07:52.896113+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:22.025097
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                        IN THE OFFICE OF THE
                                                                     CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
                                                                          NOVEMBER 9, 2023
                                                                      STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                  IN THE SUPREME COURT
                  STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                                2023 ND 209

State of North Dakota,                                Plaintiff and Appellee
      v.
Bradley Joe Morales,                              Defendant and Appellant

                                No. 20230080

Appeal from the District Court of Ward County, North Central Judicial
District, the Honorable Douglas L. Mattson, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Opinion of the Court by Crothers, Justice.

Rozanna C. Larson, State’s Attorney, Minot, ND, for plaintiff and appellee;
submitted on brief.

Kevin McCabe, Dickinson, ND, for defendant and appellant; submitted on
brief.
                               State v. Morales
                                No. 20230080

Crothers, Justice.

[¶1] Bradley Morales appeals from a criminal judgment entered after he
pleaded guilty to murder. We affirm concluding the district court did not abuse
its discretion when it denied Morales’ motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

                                       I

[¶2] A jury found Morales guilty of murdering his ex-girlfriend. We reversed
and remanded for a new trial, concluding Morales’ constitutional right to a
public trial was violated. See State v. Morales, 2019 ND 206, 932 N.W.2d 106.
On the fourth day of the new trial, Morales sought to enter a guilty plea. The
district court questioned Morales to verify his decision was not impulsive and
was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made. Morales made a lengthy
statement. He admitted to stabbing the victim, acknowledged “I did cause the
death,” and apologized to the victim’s family. He explained the crime and
subsequent prosecution “messed up my mind,” but “I can see clearly now.” The
court accepted Morales’ guilty plea. Roughly nine months later, on the day of
sentencing, Morales moved to withdraw his plea. The court denied Morales’
motion after allowing each side to make arguments. The court sentenced
Morales to 35 years imprisonment. Morales appeals.

                                       II

[¶3] North Dakota Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d) governs the withdrawal
of a guilty plea. To withdraw a guilty plea after the court has accepted the plea
but before sentencing, a defendant must “show a fair and just reason for the
withdrawal.” N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(d)(1)(B)(ii).

      “[A]mong the factors that a district court may consider in
      determining whether a fair and just reason exists to withdraw a
      guilty plea before sentencing are: (1) the amount of time that has
      passed between the entry of the plea and the motion to withdraw;
      (2) defendant’s assertion of innocence or a legally cognizable
      defense to the charge; (3) prejudice to the government; (4) whether

                                       1
      the plea was knowing and voluntary; (5) whether the plea was
      made in compliance with Rule 11, N.D.R.Crim.P.; (6) whether
      adequate assistance of counsel was available to the defendant; (7)
      the plausibility of the reason for seeking to withdraw; (8) whether
      a plea withdrawal would waste judicial resources; and (9) whether
      the parties had reached or breached a plea agreement.”

State v. Guthmiller, 2019 ND 85, ¶ 9, 924 N.W.2d 785 (alteration in original)
(quoting State v. Lium, 2008 ND 232, ¶ 17, 758 N.W.2d 711). Additional factors
courts may consider include the presence or absence of a reason for not moving
to withdraw the plea sooner and the defendant’s experience with the judicial
system. State v. Yost, 2018 ND 157, ¶ 11, 914 N.W.2d 508. “The validity of a
guilty plea is assessed by whether it represents a ‘voluntary and intelligent
choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.’” State v.
Dunn, 2023 ND 24, ¶ 7, 985 N.W.2d 644 (quoting State v. Bates, 2007 ND 15,
¶ 14, 726 N.W.2d 595).

[¶4] We review a district court’s decision on a motion to withdraw a guilty
plea for an abuse of discretion. State v. Watson, 2021 ND 18, ¶ 7, 954 N.W.2d
679. “An abuse of discretion occurs when the court’s legal discretion is not
exercised in the interest of justice” and when it “acts in an arbitrary,
unreasonable, or capricious manner, or it misinterprets or misapplies the law.”
Id.

[¶5] Morales argues the district court erred because it did not address a
statement he made at the sentencing hearing indicating he was suffering from
depression and anxiety. While arguing in support of his withdrawal motion,
Morales stated:

      “[Y]ou all are crushing my spirit; you’re demoralizing me; you sent
      me to a state of depression and anxiety so bad it just really began
      to—I just really began to get some relief from it. Ten months later,
      I just now started to feel some relief from all the depression, the
      stress, the anxiety. Like I said, you crushed my spirit. I feel like
      y’all did everything in this way so that you could take the fight out
      of me.”

                                       2
However, Morales did not argue his stress and anxiety resulted in an
unknowing or involuntary plea or otherwise justified withdrawal. Instead, he
specifically argued, in his motion papers and at the hearing, that he should be
allowed to withdraw his plea because the murder charge was
unconstitutionally vague; his trial counsel were ineffective; various witnesses
lied; and the evidence did not support a conviction. The district court addressed
each argument, and on appeal Morales does not challenge the court’s rationale
for rejecting them. Based on our review of the record, including that Morales
changed his plea four days into trial, his admission of guilt and apologies made
when he entered his guilty plea, the substance and timing of his withdrawal
motion, and the court’s rationale for denying the motion, we conclude the
district court did not abuse its discretion.

                                      III

[¶6] The criminal judgment is affirmed.

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

                                       3