Morris v. State
2017 ND 104
| N.D. | 2017Background
- In December 2014, Kabbah Morris pleaded guilty to gross sexual imposition pursuant to a plea agreement; he was sentenced to 20 years with 12.5 years suspended and probation.
- Morris is a Liberian citizen who speaks a different dialect of English and claimed limited English proficiency and need for an interpreter.
- Morris petitioned for post-conviction relief (filed August 5, 2015), alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to challenge police questioning and for allowing him to plead guilty without preserving suppression claims.
- At the post-conviction hearing, Morris testified he did not understand Miranda warnings or the plea terms; his former counsel testified he filed a suppression motion, communicated with Morris in person and by phone, and did not recall an appeal request.
- The district court found Morris understood English (noting use of a Pidgin English court interpreter and that Morris often answered before translation), concluded counsel’s performance was not objectively unreasonable, and denied relief; Morris appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to challenge police questioning or secure an interpreter | Morris: counsel should have challenged statements made to police given his limited English and should have preserved suppression issues rather than allowing guilty plea | State: counsel filed a suppression motion, communicated adequately (in person and by phone), and a plea was reasonable strategy before suppression hearing; Morris understood English | Court: Counsel’s performance was not objectively deficient; Morris failed to meet burden of showing ineffective assistance |
| Whether defendant demonstrated prejudice required under Strickland/Hill (i.e., he would have gone to trial) | Morris: would not have pleaded guilty if counsel had properly challenged interrogation/used an interpreter | State: no showing of reasonable probability outcome would differ; plea was knowingly entered and defendant was advised of rights to withdraw if court rejected plea | Court: Because Morris failed on deficient-performance prong, court did not need to resolve prejudice; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. McLain, 403 N.W.2d 16 (N.D. 1987) (sets standard for ineffective assistance analysis under state law)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice standard for guilty-plea cases requires reasonable probability defendant would have gone to trial)