993 N.W.2d 338
N.D.2023Background
- Charles Brame was charged with two counts of sexual assault and pled guilty at a pretrial conference; the district court accepted the pleas and later sentenced him per a joint recommendation.
- The transcript provided on appeal includes only the plea-hearing where Brame changed his pleas; no earlier hearing transcripts were supplied by the State below or initially to this Court.
- At the plea-hearing the district court found Brame’s pleas were "voluntary and knowing" but did not personally advise him of the specific rights enumerated in N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(1) before accepting the pleas.
- Brame appealed, arguing the district court failed to comply with Rule 11(b) and that the court was biased at sentencing.
- The Supreme Court found a plain Rule 11 error on the existing record (failure to advise rights before accepting pleas) but recognized the State might show substantial compliance if prior-hearing transcripts exist.
- The Court retained jurisdiction and remanded to allow the State an opportunity to file transcripts of prior proceedings showing substantial compliance; the bias claim was deemed waived and rejected for lack of argument/evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court complied with N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(b) before accepting guilty pleas | State: district court substantially complied (may have advised at earlier hearing); should be allowed to produce transcripts to prove it | Brame: court did not inform him of Rule 11(b)(1) rights at plea-hearing, so plea may be invalid and his substantial rights were affected | Court: On the record provided, Rule 11(b) requirements were not met (plain error). Remanded to permit State to file earlier-hearing transcripts to show substantial compliance. |
| Whether the sentencing judge was biased | State: judge presumed unbiased; no evidence of bias | Brame: asserted judicial bias in sentencing | Court: claim waived for lack of legal/factual support; assertion without argument is without merit. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Yost, 914 N.W.2d 508 (N.D. 2018) (Rule 11 provisions are mandatory and substantial compliance is required for knowing, voluntary pleas)
- State v. Hoehn, 932 N.W.2d 553 (N.D. 2019) (substantial compliance may be satisfied if court advised defendant of Rule 11 rights at a prior hearing)
- State v. Vandehoven, 772 N.W.2d 603 (N.D. 2009) (reversal where court failed to address several Rule 11(b) requirements)
- State v. Landrus, 974 N.W.2d 676 (N.D. 2022) (plain error is a clear or obvious deviation from current law)
- State v. Murphy, 855 N.W.2d 647 (N.D. 2014) (issues not raised in district court are generally not considered on appeal absent obvious error)
- State v. Smith, 989 N.W.2d 490 (N.D. 2023) (issues presented without supporting argument are deemed waived)