Estate of Christeson v. Gilstad
2013 ND 50
| N.D. | 2013Background
- Waslaski pled guilty in October 1988 to 39 counts of burglary under a plea agreement.
- He received a 12-year sentence with 3 years suspended and 71 days time served; he served the sentence.
- He later incurred federal convictions.
- In October 2011 he sought post-conviction relief arguing he would not have pled guilty had he known the crimes could be used as future sentencing factors.
- The district court and this Court addressed whether there was a duty to inform him of potential future sentence enhancements and whether the lack of a stenographic transcript barred relief.
- The stenographic notes were destroyed and no transcript existed; retention rules would have kept notes until 2009, but records were no longer available by 2012.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to inform of collateral sentencing enhancements | Waslaski contends counsel and court should have informed him of future penalties. | State says there was no duty to advise about collateral consequences. | No duty found; enhancements are collateral consequences; relief denied. |
| Effect of missing transcripts on post-conviction review | Destruction of transcripts prejudices review of counsel and recitation of facts. | No genuine issue; lack of transcript does not mandate relief. | No genuine issue; records retention issues do not mandate reversal. |
| Whether plea was knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily entered despite missing transcripts | Gaps in record undermine the validity of the plea. | Plea agreement and accompanying notes show informed rights and understanding. | Plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered by the defendant. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Waslaski raised it on appeal; trial court record incomplete. | Issue not preserved below; not properly before the Court. | Not reviewed; preserved for appellate consideration not shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Houle v. State, 482 N.W.2d 24 (ND 1992) (direct vs collateral consequences of a plea; disclosure not required for collateral)
- Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103 (S. Ct. 2013) (collateral consequences not retroactive for failure to advise)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010) (attorney must advise on collateral deportation consequences; not retroactive)
- Odom v. State, 780 N.W.2d 666 (ND 2010) (post-conviction relief procedure; summary dismissal standard)
- Kaiser v. State, 693 N.W.2d 26 (ND 2005) (summary dismissal/sufficiency of evidence in post-conviction relief)
- Wilson v. State, 603 N.W.2d 47 (ND 1999) (standard of review for post-conviction relief on appeal)