State v. Trevino, 807 N.W.2d 211

Trevino was charged with reckless driving under N.D.C.C. § 39-08-03(1) for driving recklessly in June 2009 and confronting the police chief; the State alleged high-speed entry into a residence after the confrontation.
The State moved in limine to exclude Trevino’s mental-health evidence and argued reckless driving is strict liability with no culpability requirement.
The trial court held reckless driving is strict liability and precluded lack of criminal responsibility defense; Trevino entered a conditional guilty plea.
At sentencing Trevino sought to withdraw or appeal the ruling on culpability; the court’s transcript showed a conditional plea but no formal written reservation besides the plea colloquy.
Trevino argues the statute requires a culpability element and the trial court’s ruling constitutes an appealable adverse determination under Rule 11(a)(2).
The majority reverses and remands to allow Trevino to withdraw her plea and proceed consistent with the opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Trevino preserved the culpability issue.	Trevino (Trevino) argues Rule 11(a)(2) preserves the issue.	State contends the issue may be preserved by the transcript.	Yes; transcript sufficient to preserve under Rule 11(a)(2).
Whether reckless driving is a strict liability offense without culpability.	Trevino maintains there is a culpability requirement.	State argues no culpability is required.	Statute includes a culpability element via definition of recklessly.
Whether the plea was properly entered as conditional given lack of written reservation.	Trevino asserts conditional plea was valid per transcript.	State consent and court approval shown in transcript.	Transcript suffices; best practice is a written reservation.
Whether the trial court erred in applying the 12.1-02-02(1) definition of recklessly to §39-08-03.	Trevino contends reckless driving requires recklessness as mens rea.	State argues actus reus alone defines the offense.	Court adopts the 12.1-02-02(1)(c) recklessness definition as element.
Remand remedy for withdrawal of guilty plea.	Trevino seeks withdrawal of plea.		Remand to allow withdrawal and for further proceedings.

State v. Proell, 2007 ND 17 (ND 2007) (conditioning of plea and pretrial motion review guidance)
State v. Blurton, 2009 ND 144 (ND 2009) (rules on knowing, intelligent, voluntary plea and Rule 11 compliance)
United States v. Yasak, 884 F.2d 996 (7th Cir.1989) (writing requirement for conditional pleas discussed)
United States v. Markling, 7 F.3d 1309 (7th Cir.1993) (writing requirement generally excused only in certain circumstances)
United States v. Elizalde-Adame, 262 F.3d 637 (7th Cir.2001) (harmless error exceptions to writing requirement referenced)