Saari v. State
2017 ND 94
| N.D. | 2017Background
- In Oct. 2014 Saari was charged with accomplice to forgery (class C felony) based on recorded jail phone calls in which he discussed bond-money plans with his girlfriend.
- His girlfriend passed a forged check while on the phone with Saari; police seized the funds when she tried to post bond.
- Saari pleaded guilty to accomplice to forgery and received five years, concurrent with other sentences.
- Saari sought post-conviction relief arguing (1) his conduct supported only criminal facilitation (a misdemeanor), not accomplice liability, and thus his felony conviction/sentence was unauthorized, and (2) trial counsel provided ineffective assistance (advising plea before full discovery and failing to secure a three-year concurrent sentence).
- The district court held an evidentiary hearing, reviewed call transcripts, found Saari acted with intent to have the forgery committed, and denied post-conviction relief. Saari appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Saari) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Saari's conduct supports accomplice liability (intent) or only criminal facilitation (knowledge) | Saari lacked intent that the forgery be committed; at most he knowingly facilitated — conviction should be for facilitation (misdemeanor) | Transcripts show Saari actively urged, coached, and monitored the forgery, demonstrating intent to have the offense committed | Court affirmed: transcripts and testimony support finding Saari aided with intent required for accomplice liability |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective in advising plea before receiving full discovery and in sentencing advocacy | Counsel advised plea without full discovery and failed to obtain the expected 3-year concurrent sentence; performance was deficient and prejudicial | Counsel reviewed narrative reports, met with Saari, negotiated dismissal of another charge, and plea was open — representation was reasonable under prevailing norms | Court affirmed: counsel’s performance was within reasonable professional standards; Saari did not overcome Strickland presumption |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (Strickland standard applied to guilty-plea challenges)
- State v. Ballard, 328 N.W.2d 251 (N.D. 1982) (distinguishing accomplice liability from facilitation: intent is the key difference)
- State v. Langan, 410 N.W.2d 149 (N.D. 1987) (contrast between aiding with intent vs. aiding with knowledge)
- Broadwell v. State, 841 N.W.2d 750 (N.D. 2014) (standard of review for findings in post-conviction proceedings)
- Sambursky v. State, 723 N.W.2d 524 (N.D. 2006) (presumption that counsel’s performance falls within wide range of reasonable professional assistance)