State v. Jones, 817 N.W.2d 313

Jones appealed district court denial of his motion to withdraw guilty pleas after arraignment where he waived right to counsel; he alleged lack of counsel advisement and cognitive impairment; the court found he knowingly and voluntarily waived counsel and that no manifest injustice occurred; the court considered his brain injury and medication history; the court relied on Rule 11 and prior case law to assess waiver and voluntariness; the district court sentenced Jones to concurrent one-year terms with partial suspension and noted the State’s recommendation could be overridden; on appeal, the court affirmed denial of withdrawal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of advice on self-representation	Jones argues the court failed to advise dangers of self-representation.	State argues advisement was sufficient under Faretta/Tovar given early-stage proceedings.	Not abuse of discretion; advisement adequate.
Validity of waiver of right to counsel	Jones contends waiver was not knowing/intelligent due to brain injury.	State contends waiver was clear on the record and Jones understood.	Jones validly waived right to counsel.
Manifest injustice from sentencing confusion	Jones claims confusion about the State’s recommendation and sentencing caused injustice.	State/district court found no confusion; court could sentence within range.	No manifest injustice to withdraw pleas.
Traumatic brain injury and manifest injustice	Jones argues cognitive impairment rises to manifest injustice warranting withdrawal.	District court found impairment but not manifest injustice.	No manifest injustice shown; no withdrawal necessary.

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. Supreme Court 1975) (right to self-representation but must be informed of dangers)
Patterson v. Illinois, 487 U.S. 285 (U.S. Supreme Court 1988) (stages of proceedings affect warnings for waivers of counsel)
Iowa v. Tovar, 541 U.S. 77 (U.S. Supreme Court 2004) (warns not required to give specific defenses; focuses on advisement of rights and penalties)
State v. Dvorak, 2000 ND 6, 604 N.W.2d 445 (North Dakota 2000) (waiver of counsel must be knowing, intelligent, voluntary; on-record clarity preferred)
State v. Lium, 2008 ND 232, 758 N.W.2d 711 (North Dakota 2008) (standard for withdrawal before/after plea based on manifest injustice)
State v. Pixler, 2010 ND 105, 783 N.W.2d 9 (North Dakota 2010) (mentally impaired defendant can still have valid plea if knowing and voluntary)
State v. Harmon, 1997 ND 233, 575 N.W.2d 635 (North Dakota 1997) (prior contacts with system inform awareness of risks of self-representation)
State v. Bates, 2007 ND 15, 726 N.W.2d 595 (North Dakota 2007) (manifest injustice standard for withdrawal; abuse of discretion review)