State v. Brame, 997 N.W.2d 858

Brame was charged with two counts of sexual assault and one count of furnishing alcohol to a minor; the alcohol charge was later dismissed as part of plea discussions.
At arraignment Brame signed a rights-acknowledgment form and the court read the charges and advised him of counsel and maximum penalties, but did not cover all Rule 11(b) advisements then.
At a pretrial conference Brame pleaded guilty to the two sexual-assault counts; the court accepted pleas, found a factual basis, and stated the pleas were voluntary without conducting the fuller Rule 11(b)(2) inquiry about promises, threats, or plea negotiations.
The parties had a joint sentencing recommendation; the court adopted it and sentenced Brame to 30 months with credit for time served.
On appeal Brame argued the court violated N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(2) by not explicitly determining voluntariness or asking whether the plea resulted from promises or plea discussions; he did not raise this claim below.
The Supreme Court found a plain Rule 11(b)(2) error but held Brame failed to show the error affected his substantial rights (no showing he would have pleaded differently), and therefore affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court’s failure to comply with N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(2) requires reversal of guilty pleas	The State: Even if Rule 11(b)(2) wasn’t followed, Brame didn’t show prejudice or that his substantial rights were affected	Brame: The court failed to determine voluntariness or inquire about promises or plea negotiations, so the pleas must be withdrawn	Court: Error was plain but did not affect substantial rights; no reasonable probability Brame would have refused the plea, so convictions affirmed

State v. Magnuson, 571 N.W.2d 642 (N.D. 1997) (Rule 11 advisals are mandatory)
State v. Gunwall, 522 N.W.2d 183 (N.D. 1994) (no need to readvise at change of plea if prior advisal and present recall are shown)
State v. Beckman, 591 N.W.2d 120 (N.D. 1999) (purpose of inquiry into plea negotiations under Rule 11)
State v. Farrell, 606 N.W.2d 524 (N.D. 2000) (when alerted by plea negotiations, court must make additional inquiry)
United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (to show prejudice, defendant must show reasonable probability he would not have pleaded but for the error)
State v. Henes, 763 N.W.2d 502 (N.D. 2009) (failure to raise issue below limits appellate review to obvious/plain error)
State v. Hoehn, 932 N.W.2d 553 (N.D. 2019) (errors that do not affect substantial rights are to be disregarded)