State v. Murphy
2014 ND 202
| N.D. | 2014Background
- Murphy was charged with delivery of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school (class AA felony) and related counts; information alleged prior drug convictions from Minnesota and federal court.
- Murphy pleaded guilty (initial plea Nov 2013), later withdrew and re-pleaded guilty to the same delivery charge in March 2014; other counts were dismissed.
- The statutory scheme imposed a mandatory 20-year term for third-or-subsequent offenders and an additional mandatory 8-year consecutive term for offenses within 1,000 feet of a school, producing a 28-year mandatory minimum.
- At sentencing the district court concluded N.D.C.C. § 19-03.1-23.2 did not permit deferral or suspension of any portion of the mandatory term and imposed 28 years.
- On appeal Murphy argued: (1) the court failed to advise him at plea of an additional mandatory 8-year consecutive term (Rule 11 issue); and (2) the court misread § 19-03.1-23.2 and refused to consider suspension/deferment because it thought it had no discretion given his out-of-state priors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court failed to inform Murphy, before accepting his guilty plea, of the additional mandatory 8‑year consecutive sentence required by statute (Rule 11 compliance) | State: The combined record (initial appearance, plea hearing, amended informations) shows Murphy was informed of and understood the 28‑year mandatory minimum; substantial compliance with N.D.R.Crim.P. 11. | Murphy: The court did not specifically advise him of the additional 8‑year consecutive mandatory term at the March 2014 plea, so his plea was not fully knowing under Rule 11. | Court held the plea substantially complied with Rule 11 given the full record; no obvious error affecting substantial rights was shown — guilty plea affirmed. |
| Whether the district court erred as a matter of law by concluding it lacked discretion under N.D.C.C. § 19‑03.1‑23.2 to defer or suspend any portion of a mandatory term when the charged offense was the defendant's first violation under North Dakota law (despite out‑of‑state priors) | State: § 19‑03.1‑23.2 should be read to include equivalent out‑of‑state or federal offenses so courts effectively lack discretion when equivalent priors exist. | Murphy: § 19‑03.1‑23.2 requires the court to find the offense is the defendant's first violation of the listed chapters (North Dakota chapters) before suspending; out‑of‑state priors are not expressly included, so the offense could be a "first violation" for purposes of § 19‑03.1‑23.2 and the court retained discretion to suspend/defer. | Court held the district court misinterpreted § 19‑03.1‑23.2 and erred by refusing to consider suspension/deferment on the ground it had no discretion; sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing with consideration of extenuating/mitigating circumstances and whether suspension/deferment is appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ennis v. State, 464 N.W.2d 378 (N.D. 1990) (explains very limited appellate review of sentencing discretion)
- Sambursky v. State, 723 N.W.2d 524 (N.D. 2006) (Rule 11 requires advising defendant of mandatory minimums; compliance must be substantial)
- Schweitzer v. State, 510 N.W.2d 612 (N.D. 1994) (substantial compliance with Rule 11 may be shown by considering the entire record)
- Corman v. State, 765 N.W.2d 530 (N.D. 2009) (statutory interpretation is fully reviewable on appeal despite general deference to sentencing)
- Bay v. State, 672 N.W.2d 270 (N.D. 2003) (defendant who failed to raise Rule 11 errors in district court must show obvious error affecting substantial rights on appeal)