State v. B. Nauman, 2016 MT 275N

In 2001 Nauman was convicted of felony sexual assault on a minor, served ten years, and was released in late 2010. He registered as a sex offender under § 46-23-504, MCA.
In 2011 his probation officer learned he maintained or moved to a second residence without notifying law enforcement; charged December 7, 2011 with failure to register as a sex offender.
On November 21, 2012 Nauman entered an Alford plea to failure to register; plea paperwork (Acknowledgement of Waiver of Rights) was signed by Nauman and his two attorneys. The plea recommended a three-year suspended sentence to DOC, consecutive to his prior sentence.
The District Court initially sentenced Nauman to Montana State Prison (MSP) rather than DOC; Nauman appealed and this Court in State v. Nauman reversed and remanded, instructing the court either to impose the plea-agreement sentence or allow plea withdrawal.
After remand the District Court entered a sentence consistent with the plea agreement and denied Nauman’s pro se motion to withdraw his Alford plea (and his motion to reconsider), finding the plea knowing and voluntary. Nauman appealed the denial of the motion to withdraw.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the District Court erred in denying Nauman’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea	State: District Court correctly denied the motion because plea was knowing and voluntary	Nauman: Plea involuntary/unknowing due to ineffective assistance and insufficient colloquy; also court breached plea by initially sentencing to MSP	Court affirmed denial; plea was knowing and voluntary and procedural rules bar new issues raised first on appeal
Whether Nauman may raise ineffective assistance claim in this appeal of the denial of withdrawal	State: Issue was raised below and decided; procedural posture supports resolution now	Nauman asked the Court not to address ineffective assistance; preserves argument for later	Court declined to address ineffective assistance claim because defendant requested it not be resolved now
Whether the District Court’s sentencing to MSP constituted a material breach of the plea agreement	State: Remedied on remand; not properly raised earlier on motion to withdraw	Nauman: Sentence to MSP breached plea requiring withdrawal	Court refused to consider new issue raised for first time on appeal; did not entertain it
Whether appellate review standard is de novo for voluntariness of plea	State: De novo review appropriate for mixed question of law and fact	Nauman: N/A	Court applied de novo review and affirmed

North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1970) (establishes that a defendant may enter a guilty plea while asserting innocence if the plea is voluntary and intelligent)
State v. Nauman, 376 Mont. 326 (Mont. 2014) (appellate decision reversing initial MSP sentence and remanding to impose plea agreement or allow plea withdrawal)
State v. Valdez-Mendoza, 361 Mont. 503 (Mont. 2011) (denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea reviewed de novo because voluntariness is a mixed question of law and fact)
State v. Peterson, 372 Mont. 382 (Mont. 2013) (appellate courts will not consider issues on appeal that were not raised in the district court)