2024 ND 29
N.D.2024Background
- Devin Fischer attempted to enter his estranged wife's home and fired four rounds into the door, with people inside.
- Fischer was charged with burglary, reckless endangerment, terrorizing, and tampering with physical evidence.
- Fischer and the State reached a plea agreement to reduce charges in exchange for a guilty plea to menacing (a misdemeanor), dismissing other charges.
- At the change of plea hearing, Fischer pleaded guilty to menacing, but victims wished to make impact statements, causing a delay in sentencing.
- After reviewing victim impact statements (including a video), the judge rejected the plea agreement, reinstating the more serious charges.
- Fischer was convicted at jury trial of terrorizing and reckless endangerment, then appealed arguing the plea agreement should have been accepted and that the judge was biased by not recusing himself.
Issues
| Issue | Fischer's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred by implicitly accepting, then rejecting the binding plea agreement | Acceptance of guilty plea equaled acceptance of entire plea agreement; court could not later reject it. | Acceptance of guilty plea and acceptance of plea agreement can be separate; court never expressly accepted full plea agreement. | Acceptance of guilty plea does not imply acceptance of plea agreement; court properly rejected plea agreement after hearing from victims. |
| Whether Fischer’s guilty plea to menacing should stand | The plea was accepted, and only Fischer could withdraw it; the court could not reject it later. | The court—having rejected the plea agreement—could also reject the guilty plea to the lesser charge as it was part of the full agreement. | Court did not err; guilty plea properly rejected with the plea agreement. |
| Whether failure to explicitly allow Fischer opportunity to withdraw plea was reversible error | Court failed to strictly follow required procedures under Rule 11; remedy would be to allow plea withdrawal or reinstate plea. | Fischer can't unilaterally keep part of the plea agreement; both sides must be bound. | No error; not a basis for relief. |
| Whether judge erred in not recusing himself after making statements about Fischer's guilt | Judge's comments showed bias and partiality, necessitating recusal. | Comments explaining rejection of plea agreement, not bias; not made in presence of jury. | Judge acted within discretion; no abuse in denying recusal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (Courts have discretion to accept or reject plea agreements)
- United States v. Hyde, 520 U.S. 670 (Acceptance of a guilty plea and acceptance of a plea agreement can be separated in time)
- State v. Holy Bull, 238 N.W.2d 52 (Federal interpretations of similar rule are persuasive for state courts)
- U.S. v. Ritsema, 89 F.3d 392 (Court is generally bound by plea agreement once accepted)
- U.S. v. Cunavelis, 969 F.2d 1419 (Court must conform sentence to agreement, if accepted)
- U.S. v. Olesen, 920 F.2d 538 (Once plea agreement accepted, cannot modify or reject)