Court Opinion

ID: 9393153
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-09 16:05:42.026177+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:51.450117
License: Public Domain

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

                  IN THE SUPREME COURT
                  STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                                 2023 ND 89

State of North Dakota,                                  Plaintiff and Appellee
      v.
Matthew Howard Walsh,                                Defendant and Appellant

                                No. 20220327

Appeal from the District Court of Nelson County, Northeast Central Judicial
District, the Honorable Lolita G. Hartl Romanick, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Opinion of the Court by Crothers, Justice.

Jayme J. Tenneson, State’s Attorney, Lakota, ND, for plaintiff and appellee.

Benjamin C. Pulkrabek, Mandan, ND, for defendant and appellant.
                                State v. Walsh
                                 No. 20220327

Crothers, Justice.

[¶1] Matthew Walsh appeals from an amended criminal judgment entered
against him. Walsh argues the district court did not follow N.D.R.Crim.P.
11(b)(1) and advise him of its authority to order restitution. We affirm.

                                        I

[¶2] On January 7, 2021, Walsh was charged with theft of property. At a
hearing on April 8, 2022, Walsh pleaded guilty and restitution was reserved.
On July 29, 2022, a restitution hearing was held. On September 11, 2022, the
parties filed an agreement stating Walsh owed $3,000 in restitution. The court
ordered Walsh to pay $3,000 in restitution and amended the criminal judgment
to reflect the amount owed. On November 7, 2022, Walsh appealed the
amended criminal judgment.

                                       II

[¶3] Walsh argues the district court did not follow N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(1) and
advise him of the court’s authority to award restitution before he gave his
guilty plea.

[¶4] Under N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(1), the court must inform a defendant of his
rights and the charges against him. Rule 11(b)(1) states:

      “(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;
            (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;

                                        1
            (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.”

[¶5] “Before accepting a guilty plea, the trial court must advise the defendant
of certain rights under N.D.R.Crim.P. 11.” State v. Vandehoven, 2009 ND 16, ¶
22, 722 N.W.2d 603. “The advice required to be given by Rule 11 is mandatory
and binding on the court.” Id. “Although Rule 11 does not require any
ritualistic, predetermined formality by the trial court, the court must
substantially comply with the procedural requirements of the rule to ensure
the defendant is entering a voluntary plea of guilty.” Id. Whether the court
properly complied with N.D.R.Crim.P. 11 is a question of law, which this Court
reviews under the de novo standard of review. State v. Dunn, 2023 ND 24, ¶ 4,
985 N.W.2d 644. The guilty plea will be affirmed if the record shows the court
complied with N.D.R.Crim.P. 11. State v. McKay, 243 N.W.2d 853, 855 (N.D.
1975).

[¶6] The record shows the district court told Walsh about potential restitution
before he pleaded guilty.

      “The Court: All aright. Mr. Walsh, in case 32-2021-CR-02, that is
      the theft of property, C felony charge that carries maximum
      penalties of 5 years, $525 in court fees, $1,000 in—or excuse me,
      $10,000 in fines potentially as maximum penalties, and then
      restitution.”

                                       2
Shortly after this statement by the court, Walsh pleaded guilty to the theft of
property. Later during the same hearing the court brought up restitution
several more times:

      “The Court: I will waive any fines because of the significant
      restitution that is at issue. In case 32-2021-CR-02 you are assessed
      $525 in court fees. I think there is a responsibility to the
      community, and you need to take that responsibility even though
      restitution is being imposed as well. I do order restitution, but you
      have a responsibility to the community and your victim. So both of
      those will be imposed in 2021-CR-02. Restitution will remain
      open—did you say 60 days, Mr. Tenneson?

      Mr. Tenneson: Yes, Your Honor.

      The Court: — for 60 days. What that means, Mr. Walsh, is there
      will be another hearing if you disagree with the amounts that are
      claimed for restitution . . . . Here’s what I am going to do. I am
      going to set a minimum payment plan $50 starting 60 days from
      your release. You need to understand that payments go first to pay
      off that restitution . . . . And the Court isn’t going to see any of that
      money on the fees until you get that restitution paid off.”

[¶7] Compliance with N.D.R.Crim.P. 11 does not require ritualistic or
predetermined formality by the district court. The court only must inform the
defendant of the rights provided by the rule. Before Walsh pleaded guilty, the
court stated he may owe restitution. Therefore, the court complied with Rule
11.

                                        III

[¶8] The district court complied with N.D.R.Crim.P. 11. The amended
criminal judgment is affirmed.

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

                                         3