State v. Peterson, 927 N.W.2d 74

Background

Peterson was charged with class B felony burglary under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-22-02(2)(b) after allegedly fleeing a burglary scene and driving toward a police officer in a way that appeared an attempt to strike the officer.
At a June 10, 2015 change-of-plea hearing, Peterson pleaded guilty; the court initially misstated the felony class but corrected itself and accepted the plea after finding a factual basis and that the plea was knowing and voluntary.
Peterson was sentenced to 10 years with all but five years suspended; later amended judgments clarified the statute and application of the 85% service rule under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-09.1.
Peterson moved in 2018 to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing (1) Rule 11 defects at plea entry, (2) ineffective assistance because counsel failed to advise him of the 85% rule, and (3) manifest injustice from procedural sentencing errors.
The district court denied the motion after a hearing; the Supreme Court reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion and affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was a sufficient factual basis for the guilty plea under N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(3)	State: record (complaint, affidavit, prosecutor’s proffer) established facts showing attempt/menacing during flight	Peterson: counsel’s statement that he wasn’t directing vehicle at officer undermined factual basis	Court: sufficient factual basis existed based on record and prosecutor’s statement; counsel’s mitigation was not a denial
Whether the plea complied with Rule 11(b)(4) requirement that defendant acknowledge facts or that evidence exists to support plea	State: defendant agreed he fled and drove toward officer; that admission supported elements (menacing/attempt)	Peterson: disagreement about intent to direct vehicle at officer meant he did not admit requisite facts	Court: petitioner’s admission he fled and drove toward officer satisfied requirement; mens rea for menacing met by knowingly placing/attempting to place officer in fear
Whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to inform Peterson of the 85% service requirement	State: record shows no active misinformation; failure to inform not per se ineffective	Peterson: counsel told him only sentencing-length differed between class B and C and did not explain 85% rule; would have affected plea decision	Court: declined to resolve ineffective assistance on direct appeal; held record did not show counsel plainly defective or that counsel actively misinformed; failure to advise on 85% rule likely not ineffective per precedent
Whether manifest injustice warranted withdrawal of plea due to procedural errors	State: plea and sentence reflected agreed recommendation; petitioner understood plea and sentence	Peterson: alleged Rule 11/sentencing procedural errors created manifest injustice	Court: no manifest injustice—petitioner understood plea agreement and sentence; district court did not abuse discretion

Key Cases Cited

Mackey v. State, 2012 ND 159, 819 N.W.2d 539 (explaining means to establish factual basis for plea)
Froistad v. State, 2002 ND 52, 641 N.W.2d 86 (factual basis may be sufficient if it sets forth elements)
Bruce v. State, 2012 ND 140, 818 N.W.2d 747 (defining "imminent" and addressing menacing elements)
Yost v. State, 2018 ND 157, 914 N.W.2d 508 (Rule 11 substantial compliance and manifest injustice principles)
Feist v. State, 2006 ND 21, 708 N.W.2d 870 (standard of review for plea-withdrawal denial)
Bates v. State, 2007 ND 15, 726 N.W.2d 595 (compare elements to defendant’s admissions)
Berg v. State, 2015 ND 61, 860 N.W.2d 829 (plea acceptance requires conduct admitted to match charged offense)
Sambursky v. State, 2008 ND 133, 751 N.W.2d 247 (failure to inform about 85% rule often not ineffective assistance)
Stein v. State, 2018 ND 264, 920 N.W.2d 477 (misinformation about sentence length can be ineffective assistance)
Guthmiller v. State, 2019 ND 85, 924 N.W.2d 785 (manifest injustice standard and deference to trial court)
State v. Peterson, 2016 ND 192, 886 N.W.2d 71 (prior appeal addressing related issues)