Dailey v. State
2011 ND 223
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Jones was charged March 31, 2011 with three class A misdemeanors: interference with a phone during an emergency call, criminal mischief, and simple assault (domestic violence, second offense).
- Jones pled guilty to all three charges at arraignment after the State’s sentencing recommendation was discussed.
- The district court advised Jones of rights, explained penalties, and stated the court could impose any sentence; Jones acknowledged understanding.
- The court found the guilty pleas knowing and voluntary, and Jones was sentenced to concurrent terms with portions suspended.
- Jones moved to withdraw his pleas; the district court denied the motion; on appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the denial.
- The court analyzed Rule 11(d), the right to counsel and self-representation, and whether there was a manifest injustice due to any deficiency or cognitive impairment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there an abuse of discretion in denying withdrawal of pleas? | Jones inadequately understood guidance and was misled by sentencing. | Jones lacked understanding due to representation gaps and brain injury. | No; the district court did not abuse discretion. |
| Did the court properly advise on dangers of self-representation and waiver of counsel? | State contends advisement was adequate. | Jones lacked proper warnings about self-representation. | Yes; advisement met requirements under Faretta/Tovar framework. |
| Did Jones voluntarily, knowingly waive the right to counsel? | Waiver was valid given on-record assurances. | Potential cognitive impairment undermines waiver. | Yes; waiver was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. |
| Was there manifest injustice due to confusion over sentencing causing withdrawal right? | No manifest injustice from sentencing discussion. | Confusion evidenced by swift attempt to withdraw plea. | No; withdrawal not warranted based on record and case law. |
| Did Jones’ traumatic brain injury constitute manifest injustice justifying withdrawal? | Mental impairment could render plea invalid. | Impairment not proven to negate knowing/voluntary plea. | No; record insufficient to show manifest injustice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. (1975)) (right to self-representation requires warnings about dangers; no scripted dialogue required)
- Patterson v. Illinois, 487 U.S. 285 (U.S. (1988)) (stage-dependent advisement; pragmatically assess usefulness of counsel)
- Tovar v. City of Iowa, 541 U.S. 77 (U.S. (2004)) (no mandatory warnings beyond informing charges, right to counsel, and penalties; less formal for arraignments)
- Dvorak, 2000 ND 6, 604 N.W.2d 445 (N.D. 2000) (on-record waiver of counsel; factors including defendant’s background and conduct)
- Lium, 2008 ND 232, 758 N.W.2d 711 (N.D. 2008) (timing for withdrawal of guilty plea under Rule 11(d) analysis)
- Pixler, 2010 ND 105, 783 N.W.2d 9 (N.D. 2010) (manifest injustice standard for withdrawal of plea; review for abuse of discretion)