State v. Huber
2011 ND 23
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Eaton pleaded guilty on August 3, 2004 to possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia; the district court accepted the guilty pleas based on the State's factual basis listing items found at Eaton's residence.
- Eaton was sentenced to five years in prison on each count, to run concurrently.
- Eaton filed a post-conviction relief application on December 24, 2009, with an amended petition on February 22, 2010.
- The district court summarily denied Eaton's post-conviction relief on July 21, 2010.
- On appeal, Eaton challenges the sufficiency of the factual basis to support his plea, arguing it established only constructive possession and insufficient intent to deliver.
- The State argues the factual basis, along with the quantity of methamphetamine and corroborating items (pay-owe sheets, scales, shipping documents, plane tickets, etc.), suffices to show possession with intent to deliver.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the factual basis sufficient to support the guilty plea? | Eaton: basis establishes only constructive possession, not willful possession with intent. | State: the combination of quantity and corroborating items supports intent to deliver. | Yes; sufficient factual basis existed for possession with intent to deliver. |
| Did the district court properly infer intent to deliver from the facts admitted/contained in the record? | Eaton contested that intent could be inferred from the facts presented at plea; inference invalid if not established. | State: quantity and accompanying paraphernalia allow inference of intent to deliver; court may rely on those facts. | Yes; the court properly inferred intent to deliver from the record evidence and plea context. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fickert, 2010 ND 61 (ND 2010) (defines factual basis and its relation to the plea)
- Bates, 2007 ND 15 (ND 2007) (discusses establishing a factual basis; use of prosecutor's offer of proof)
- Froistad v. State, 2002 ND 52 (ND 2002) (discusses factors for determining a factual basis and manifest injustice)
- State v. Hamann, 262 N.W.2d 495 (ND 1978) (approves use of offer of proof and record for factual basis)
- State v. Oie, 2005 ND 160 (ND 2005) (notes open court inquiry and record supplementation to factual basis)
- Patten v. State, 2008 ND 29 (ND 2008) (post-conviction relief treated under Rule 11(d) withdrawal context)
- DeCoteau, 325 N.W.2d 187 (ND 1982) (discusses evidence and basis for guilty plea and corroborating material)