Interest of A.L.
2011 ND 189
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Gress pled guilty in 2006 to multiple offenses including two counts of aggravated assault, burglary, two counts of violating a domestic violence protection order, and one count of simple assault.
- Gress applied for post-conviction relief in 2008, which the district court denied after a hearing.
- On January 24, 2011, Gress moved to suspend his sentence under Rule 60(b)(6) or to withdraw his unconstitutional plea, alleging coercion and lack of knowledge of consequences.
- The district court denied the motion in February 2011 by simply writing “DENIED.”
- This Court previously held (State v. Gress, 2011 ND 193) that the district court’s denial lacked explanation and remanded for basis of decision.
- On remand, the district court provided its basis, asserting it would have denied suspension for lack of discernible basis and would have denied withdrawal because Gress did not contest guilt at plea or sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May a guilty plea be withdrawn after acceptance and sentence when manifest injustice is claimed? | Gress argues withdrawal is necessary to correct manifest injustice. | Gress contends plea was coerced and not knowingly entered. | Yes, but only if manifest injustice is shown; court reviews under Rule 11(d)(2). |
| Should the motion be treated as post-conviction relief under Rule 11(d)? | Gress’s motion is a second application for post-conviction relief. | State contends procedural vehicle and timing; but the district court summarily denied. | The motion is treated as a post-conviction relief claim under Rule 11(d). |
| Did the district court err by denying withdrawal based on matters outside the pleadings without notice or an opportunity to respond? | Withdrawal claim may rely on matters outside the record; due process requires notice and evidence. | Court relied on record; post-conviction relief can be summarily denied when no genuine issues. | Yes, error: court must provide notice and opportunity to respond when considering outside-record evidence. |
| Was the district court's summary denial proper under the post-conviction framework? | Denial should be based on genuine issues of material fact with proper procedure. | May proceed on motion without lengthy evidentiary procedure if no issues exist. | No; proper procedure under N.D.R.Civ.P. 56 and §29-32.1-09 required notice and opportunity to present evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Eaton v. State, 2011 ND 35 (2011) (treatment of post-conviction relief as Rule 11(d) proceeding)
- Patten v. State, 2008 ND 29 (2008) (withdrawal requires manifest injustice for post-plea relief)
- State v. Pixler, 2010 ND 105 (2010) (competence and knowing plea; evidence needed for manifest injustice)
- Berlin v. State, 2005 ND 110 (2005) (notice and opportunity to respond when dismissing post-conviction relief under §29-32.1-09)
- Wong v. State, 2010 ND 219 (2010) (summary dismissal standards and process in post-conviction proceedings)