State v. Eckroth, 858 N.W.2d 908

Eckroth, on his third DUI in five years, was placed on the 24/7 sobriety program as a bond condition and violated it three times, resulting in six days in custody before further bond hearings.
In April 2014 a jury convicted Eckroth of DUI; at sentencing the State introduced two prior DUI convictions (Minnesota, March 2010; Bismarck Municipal Court, October 2010) to enhance the offense to a third DUI.
The district court admitted the two prior convictions as valid for enhancement and sentenced Eckroth to one year in custody with ninety days suspended and two years of probation.
Eckroth argued the Minnesota and Bismarck records were invalid uncounseled convictions and thus could not support enhancement, and he sought credit for time served due to 24/7 violations.
Eckroth later moved for stay and relief pending appeal; this Court affirmed the district court’s judgment and rejected his challenges to the admissibility of the prior convictions and the denial of credit for 24/7 time served; Eckroth served the full ninety-day sentence on the third-offense DUI.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the prior convictions used for enhancement were valid.	Eckroth contends the prior convictions were uncounseled or not shown to have valid waiver.	Eckroth argues the records do not demonstrate waiver of counsel, invalidating enhancement.	The prior Minnesota record shows rights administered and guilty plea; Bismarck record substantially complies with Rule 11; both valid for enhancement.
Whether Eckroth was entitled to credit for time served on 24/7 sobriety violations.	Eckroth claims credit should reduce the third-offense DUI sentence.	The district court denied credit; Eckroth argues it was error.	No preservation of error at sentencing; not clearly erroneous under Rule 52(b); court did not commit obvious error.

State v. Emery, 2008 ND 3 (ND 2008) (prior uncounseled conviction may not be used for enhancement absent waiver of counsel)
State v. Orr, 375 N.W.2d 171 (ND 1985) (waiver of counsel must be shown; silent record cannot defeat validity of prior conviction)
State v. Olson, 544 N.W.2d 144 (ND 1996) (plea of guilty can waive defects in prior proceedings)
State v. Storbakken, 246 N.W.2d 78 (ND 1976) (record sufficiency for waiver considerations)
State v. Cummings, 386 N.W.2d 468 (ND 1986) (record must reflect informed waiver of rights)
State v. Berger, 1999 ND 46 (ND 1999) (burden shifts to defendant once validity shown; Rule 11 considerations)
City of Fargo v. Christiansen, 430 N.W.2d 327 (ND 1988) (municipal-records may be adequate if rights and procedures are respected)