State v. Cox, 889 N.W.2d 848

Michael Cox was charged with felony aggravated assault (allegedly striking a victim with a beer can causing serious facial injuries); charge was later amended to misdemeanor assault as part of a plea agreement.
On May 12, 2016 Cox pled guilty and was sentenced to 109 days incarceration with credit for time served; criminal judgment entered the same day.
Cox claims he had not received all requested discovery before pleading and contends his plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
In June 2016 Cox attempted to file three handwritten motions to withdraw his guilty plea; each was stamped by the clerk as not conforming to N.D.R.Ct. 3.1(b) (requiring attorney signature for represented parties) and were not included in the district court record.
The district court never adjudicated any motion to withdraw because the motions were not filed; Cox did not move to supplement the record on appeal.
The Supreme Court affirmed the criminal judgment, finding no basis to consider unfiled motions or to remand for adjudication.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Cox is entitled to a remand so the district court can adjudicate motions to withdraw his guilty plea	The State: no remand; no filed motions in the record and ordinary remedies available	Cox: his handwritten motions to withdraw plea should be considered and remand required because plea was involuntary due to missing discovery	Court: Affirmed — motions were not filed, thus not before the court; issues raised first on appeal are not considered; no remand.
Whether the clerk erred in refusing to file Cox’s handwritten motions	The State: clerks followed N.D.R.Ct. 3.1(b) and 3.1(j) by refusing nonconforming documents for a represented party	Cox: submission attempts indicate the motions existed and should have been accepted or otherwise noted in the record	Court: No error — rules required attorney signature for represented parties; clerks properly refused to file nonconforming documents.
Whether the Court should exercise supervisory jurisdiction to require a district-court ruling on the motions	The State: ordinary remedies exist (counsel can file motion or defendant can proceed pro se) so supervisory relief unnecessary	Cox: requests remand for district-court consideration of plea-withdrawal motions	Court: Declined to exercise supervisory authority because adequate ordinary remedies are available; affirmed judgment.

State v. Chatman, 872 N.W.2d 595 (N.D. 2015) (appellate courts generally do not address issues raised first on appeal)
Boedecker v. St. Alexius Hospital, 298 N.W.2d 372 (N.D. 1980) (treating attempted appeals as requests for supervisory jurisdiction in limited circumstances)
Forum Commc’ns Co. v. Paulson, 752 N.W.2d 177 (N.D. 2008) (discussing discretionary supervisory writ authority)
Spence v. North Dakota District Court, 292 N.W.2d 53 (N.D. 1980) (supervisory writs used cautiously to secure order and regularity)
Olson v. North Dakota Dist. Ct., 271 N.W.2d 574 (N.D. 1978) (supervisory writs as a remedy when ordinary remedies are inadequate)
State v. Garge, 818 N.W.2d 718 (N.D. 2012) (recognizing defendant’s constitutional right to self-representation and corollary issues)