State v. Howard
798 N.W.2d 675
N.D.2011Background
- Howard pleaded guilty to conspiracy to deliver methamphetamine, delivery of methamphetamine, and conspiracy to deliver ecstasy; sentenced to ten years on each conspiracy count with suspended time and ten years on the delivery count with no suspension.
- After sentencing, Howard moved to withdraw his guilty plea to delivery asserting lack of actual delivery and a truthful factual basis did not support the plea.
- District court denied withdrawal, ruling the delivery definition includes constructive/attempted delivery and that Howard’s conduct—driving the vehicle and being present—sufficiently supported the plea.
- The State presented a factual basis: Howard called the supplier, transported the methamphetamine in his vehicle, and made the substance available for purchase by the informant; the informant bought tablets in Howard’s vehicle with Howard present.
- Post-conviction relief and Rule 11(d) standards govern withdrawal of guilty pleas; the court must determine if there is a manifest injustice justifying withdrawal, with abuse of discretion review.
- The appellate courtAffirmed, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion and that the facts admitted by Howard were sufficient to establish a factual basis for delivery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the factual basis supported the delivery plea | Howard contends no delivery occurred | State asserts constructive/attempted delivery suffices; Howard participated by transport | No manifest injustice; factual basis adequate |
| Whether withdrawal was necessary to correct manifest injustice | Howard innocence warrants withdrawal | No manifest injustice shown | Abuse of discretion not shown; no manifest injustice |
Key Cases Cited
- Eaton v. State, 793 N.W.2d 790 (2011 ND 35) (post-conviction relief and Rule 11(d) standard; manifest injustice standard applied)
- State v. Bates, 726 N.W.2d 595 (2007 ND 15) (abuse of discretion review for withdrawal of guilty plea)
- Fickert v. State, 780 N.W.2d 670 (2010 ND 61) (define factual basis; compare elements to admitted facts)
- Helton v. State, 730 N.W.2d 610 (2007 ND 61) (delivery includes constructive/attempted transfer; factual basis sufficiency)