Dodge v. State, 942 N.W.2d 478

Dodge was charged with multiple felonies and a misdemeanor in Dec. 2015; appointed counsel changed after counsel moved to withdraw and substitution in May 2016.
Dodge repeatedly attempted to dismiss court‑appointed counsel; the court denied his motions and later placed counsel on standby.
A late (Aug. 2016) motion for a psychiatric evaluation was denied for untimeliness, lack of notice of an insanity defense, and absence of contemporaneous evidence of incompetence.
At the start of trial, after a short recess and with counsel unprepared, Dodge entered Alford pleas and was immediately sentenced; he stated he was as satisfied with counsel as he would be: “Good as I’m going to get.”
In post‑conviction proceedings Dodge claimed he was incompetent at the plea and that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate competency; the State’s expert (Dr. Lisota) found Dodge competent, the defense expert (Dr. Mugge) diagnosed delusional disorder and opined Dodge could not coherently confer with counsel.
The district court credited the State’s expert and trial judge observations, found Dodge competent and no prejudice from counsel’s conduct, denied post‑conviction relief, and the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Competency to enter guilty plea	Dodge: delusional disorder rendered him unable to understand/consult, so plea invalid	State: record, trial judge observations, and State expert show competency	Court: competency finding not clearly erroneous; plea valid
Ineffective assistance — failure to investigate competency	Dodge: counsel should have investigated and raised competency, so representation deficient and prejudicial	State: even if counsel erred, Dodge cannot show prejudice because he was competent	Court: no prejudice shown; ineffective assistance claim fails
Prejudice standard when incompetence alleged	Dodge: must show counsel’s failure caused prejudice	State: courts apply a prejudice inquiry tailored to competence claims (reasonable probability movant was incompetent)	Court: adopts/relies on approach requiring reasonable probability of incompetence; Dodge fails that test
Withdrawal of plea / manifest injustice	Dodge: plea withdrawal necessary to correct manifest injustice (incompetence/ineffective counsel)	State: no manifest injustice; procedures and findings adequate	Court: no manifest injustice; district court did not abuse discretion

Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (defines competency standard)
Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (same competency standard applies to guilty pleas)
State v. Gleeson, 619 N.W.2d 858 (North Dakota exposition of Dusky test)
State v. Dahl, 783 N.W.2d 41 (conflicting expert testimony; appellate deference to district court credibility findings)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance two‑prong test)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (Strickland applies to guilty‑plea challenges)
Hubbard v. State, 31 S.W.3d 25 (prejudice in incompetence cases requires reasonable probability movant was incompetent)
Bouchillon v. Collins, 907 F.2d 589 (discusses prejudice inquiry for counsel’s failure to investigate mental health)