Peltier v. State, 2015 ND 35

Background

In May 1993 Stacy Peltier pled guilty under a plea agreement to 18 burglary counts across eight counties and received concurrent five-year sentences; he did not appeal and was released in 1996.
In January 2013, Peltier filed a post-conviction relief petition seeking to withdraw his guilty pleas, asserting Rule 11 violations, constitutional violations (Fifth, Sixth, Fourteenth Amendments), ineffective assistance of counsel, and improper case combination; district court summarily denied relief.
Peltier later received enhanced federal sentences that he contends were based on the 1993 state convictions, motivating the post-conviction challenge nearly 20 years after sentencing.
The district court found (1) most claims lacked merit, (2) no genuine issue of material fact was shown, (3) withdrawing pleas was not necessary to correct a manifest injustice, and (4) the State proved laches prejudiced its ability to re-prosecute.
On appeal the North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed de novo as a summary-judgment style disposition and affirmed the district court.

Issues

Issue	Peltier's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of Rule 11 factual basis	Trial court failed to establish sufficient factual basis for guilty pleas; record lacks details and requisite intent	Record, prior hearings, judge’s notes, and sentencing transcript supplied a sufficient factual basis	Court held factual basis was sufficient; no material fact issue shown
Voluntariness/knowing plea under Rule 11	Pleas were not shown to be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent because court did not personally re-advise him at change-of-plea	Court previously advised Peltier; he affirmed and waived re-advisement; substantial compliance with Rule 11 is sufficient	Court affirmed district court’s exercise of discretion: withdrawing pleas not necessary to correct manifest injustice
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel failed to establish factual basis, failed to ensure voluntary plea, and did not advise collateral federal enhancement consequences	Counsel negotiated favorable plea; defendant offered no evidence showing deficient performance or that he would have insisted on trial	Court held Peltier failed to meet Strickland standards; no genuine factual dispute and no prejudice shown
Laches (State affirmative defense)	Delay of ~20 years is excusable given collateral federal consequences	Delay was unreasonable and prejudiced State—witnesses, prosecutors, and records may be unavailable across eight counties	Court held laches proven as a matter of law under these facts; delay and prejudice established

Key Cases Cited

Overlie v. State, 804 N.W.2d 50 (N.D. 2011) (summary dismissal of post-conviction relief reviewed like summary judgment)
Mackey v. State, 819 N.W.2d 539 (N.D. 2012) (methods for establishing factual basis for guilty plea and manifest injustice standard)
State v. Blurton, 770 N.W.2d 231 (N.D. 2009) (guilty plea must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
Damron v. State, 663 N.W.2d 650 (N.D. 2003) (limits on attacking voluntariness when plea entered on counsel’s advice)
Abdi v. State, 608 N.W.2d 292 (N.D. 2000) (court may rely on prior advisements; no need to readvise at change of plea if prior advisement recalled)
Davenport v. State, 620 N.W.2d 164 (N.D. 2000) (Rule 11 advisement is mandatory and requires substantial compliance)
State v. Dalman, 520 N.W.2d 860 (N.D. 1994) (defense counsel need not advise defendants of all collateral consequences of a plea)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)