State v. Craig, 927 N.W.2d 99

In 2007 Russell Frank Craig pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced.
On August 17, 2018 Craig moved under N.D.R.Ct. 3.2 to withdraw his guilty plea and requested oral argument; the State initially did not respond.
The district court inquired about the State’s lack of response, the State sought and received an extension, and filed its response on October 12, 2018.
The court scheduled an oral argument for October 16, 2018 by issuing a notice on October 4, but cancelled the hearing “per judge” without explanation and denied Craig’s motion on October 24, 2018.
Craig appealed, arguing the court (1) improperly allowed the State to respond late, (2) was required to hold oral argument under N.D.R.Ct. 3.2, and (3) should be disqualified on remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether State’s late response violated N.D.R.Ct. 3.2(a)(2)	State relied on court-granted extension; timely response after extension	Craig argued Rule gives opponent only 14 days and extension was improper	Not decided on merits — Craig failed to preserve the issue in district court, so appellate review declined
Whether court was required to hold oral argument after Craig requested it under N.D.R.Ct. 3.2(a)(3)	Court treated scheduling and cancellation as within its discretion	Craig argued he timely requested oral argument and was entitled to be heard; court scheduling relieved him of securing a date	Court held the judge abused discretion by cancelling the scheduled October 16 hearing without letting Craig be heard; remand for hearing required
Whether a party may rely on the other party’s scheduling to secure oral argument	State (implicitly) relied on court scheduling	Craig relied on court-issued calendar notice instead of securing date himself	Court recognized a party normally must secure and notice a hearing, but here the court itself scheduled the hearing, so Craig was entitled to the hearing the court cancelled
Whether a different judge should be assigned on remand	State implicitly opposed reassignment	Craig argued appearance of impropriety because judge favored procedural accommodation to State	Reassignment denied — no sufficient factual showing of bias or appearance of impropriety; mere error in applying rules is not disqualifying

State v. Bates, 2007 ND 15, 726 N.W.2d 595 (establishing manifest injustice standard for plea withdrawal)
Johnson v. Johnson, 2017 ND 125, 894 N.W.2d 833 (Rule 3.2 oral-argument request is complete only when party secures time and serves notice)
Desert Partners IV, LP v. Benson, 2014 ND 192, 855 N.W.2d 608 (request for oral argument is complete when requester secures time and notifies other parties; remedy for denial without argument is remand)
In re Estate of Bartelson, 2013 ND 129, 833 N.W.2d 522 (court abused discretion by ruling before time to request/notice a hearing expired)
State v. Nelson, 2015 ND 301, 872 N.W.2d 613 (cancellation of a scheduled hearing without explanation can be an abuse of discretion)
State v. $3260.00 U.S. Currency, 2018 ND 112, 910 N.W.2d 839 (no error where record showed requesting party did not secure a hearing date)
Vakoch, 2001 ND 112, 628 N.W.2d 298 (factors considered when deciding whether to reassign a judge on remand)
Rath v. Rath, 2016 ND 105, 879 N.W.2d 735 (standard for appearance of impartiality and reassignment)
Datz v. Dosch, 2014 ND 102, 846 N.W.2d 724 (legal error is not evidence of judicial bias)