932 N.W.2d 893
N.D.2019Background
- Johns was charged with unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia as a class C felony (second offense) under N.D.C.C. § 19-03.4-03(2); the information alleged a prior conviction in a 2016 case.
- Johns moved to dismiss, arguing his prior conviction resulted from a deferred imposition of sentence that was later vacated/dismissed after successful probation, and thus cannot be used to enhance the current charge.
- The State argued § 12.1-32-02(4) allows pleading and proving a prior deferred conviction for enhancement and that § 19-03.4-03(2) requires only a prior conviction under title 19.
- The district court denied the motion; Johns entered a conditional guilty plea to the enhanced charge and appealed.
- The Supreme Court analyzed the interaction of § 19-03.4-03(2), § 12.1-32-02(4), § 12.1-32-07.1, and N.D.R.Crim.P. 32.1 and relied on precedent (notably Nelson) to determine whether a dismissed deferred imposition may be used for enhancement.
- The Court concluded Johns’s prior deferred imposition had been dismissed and therefore could not be used to enhance the current charge; it reversed and remanded to allow withdrawal of the conditional plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a prior deferred imposition of sentence that was later dismissed may be used to enhance a subsequent offense under § 19-03.4-03(2) | The State: § 12.1-32-02(4) permits pleading and proving a prior deferred conviction for enhancement; § 19-03.4-03(2) requires only a prior conviction under title 19 | Johns: A dismissed deferred imposition (after withdrawal of plea and dismissal under § 12.1-32-07.1 and N.D.R.Crim.P. 32.1) is not a conviction for enhancement purposes | The Court: A deferred imposition that has been dismissed cannot be used to enhance; reversal and remand to allow withdrawal of conditional plea |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kuruc, 846 N.W.2d 314 (N.D. 2014) (rules for statutory construction and harmonizing related provisions)
- State v. Ebertz, 782 N.W.2d 350 (N.D. 2010) (interaction of deferred imposition statutes and N.D.R.Crim.P. 32.1; automatic dismissal and sealing after probation completion)