924 N.W.2d 785
N.D.2019Background
- Guthmiller was charged with luring a minor by computer after Snapchat messages with a 15‑year‑old were discovered; he initially pleaded not guilty but later entered a guilty (Alford) plea pursuant to a plea agreement.
- At the change‑of‑plea hearing the court verified the plea was voluntary, that Guthmiller understood his rights, and accepted the plea; sentencing was continued several times.
- Before sentencing, Guthmiller moved to withdraw his guilty plea citing purported new Snapchat activity suggesting third‑party access to his account.
- The district court held a hearing, denied the motion finding Guthmiller failed to show a “fair and just” reason to withdraw and that the State would be prejudiced, and later sentenced him.
- On appeal Guthmiller also argued the court committed obvious error by failing to advise him of a mandatory five‑year probation, but he did not provide a complete trial transcript; the Supreme Court declined to review that claim for the first time on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying motion to withdraw guilty plea before sentencing | State: Denial proper because defendant did not show a “fair and just” reason and State would be prejudiced | Guthmiller: New Snapchat evidence (possible third‑party control) is a fair and just reason to withdraw plea | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; evidence did not establish a fair and just reason |
| Whether alleged new Snapchat activity plausibly undermines plea knowingness/voluntariness | State: Plea was knowing/voluntary and defendant admitted communications with the victim | Guthmiller: Account inactivity and unexpected activity show account compromise, undermining his admissions | Court: Facts did not support withdrawal; plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered and new info was not sufficiently persuasive |
| Whether State would suffer more than ordinary prejudice if plea withdrawn | State: Prejudice would result (delay, resource waste, investigative reliance on plea) | Guthmiller: Withdrawal is appropriate to pursue innocence/defense | Court: District court properly found State would be prejudiced and considered prejudice after defendant failed to show fair and just reason |
| Whether appellate review can reach alleged obvious error re: mandatory probation without complete transcript | State: Not raised below; incomplete record prevents meaningful review | Guthmiller: Trial court failed to advise him of mandatory five‑year probation (obvious error) | Court: Declined to address on appeal due to incomplete record and failure to raise earlier |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lium, 758 N.W.2d 711 (2008) (establishes nonexhaustive factors for determining a “fair and just” reason to withdraw a plea before sentencing)
- State v. Bates, 726 N.W.2d 595 (2007) (standard that withdrawal after sentencing requires showing manifest injustice)
- State v. Pixler, 783 N.W.2d 9 (2010) (defines abuse of discretion standard)
- State v. Cook, 843 N.W.2d 1 (2014) (appellant bears risk when transcript is not provided; appellate review limited by incomplete record)
- Peltier v. State, 859 N.W.2d 381 (2015) (prior advisements can obviate need to repeat rights at subsequent hearings if defendant recalls them)
- Kalmio v. State, 915 N.W.2d 655 (2018) (issues not adequately raised below will generally not be considered on appeal)