918 N.W.2d 64
N.D.2018Background
- William J. Wallace was charged (Sept 2016) with luring minors by computer, a class C felony, and entered an open guilty plea at a change-of-plea/sentencing hearing on Oct 3, 2017.
- The district court originally sentenced Wallace to five years in prison (all but 18 months suspended) and four years of probation; a criminal judgment was filed Oct 5, 2017.
- The State moved to amend the judgment twice: first to reduce probation to three years (first amended judgment, Nov 9, 2017), then to correct probation to the statutory mandatory minimum of five years (N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-06.1(4)).
- While the second amendment motion was pending, Wallace filed multiple appeals and other motions (including requests for appointed counsel and for a change of judge).
- The district court filed a second amended criminal judgment on Mar 6, 2018 imposing five years’ probation; Wallace appealed. The Supreme Court found the record did not show Wallace had been informed of or understood the five-year mandatory probation before entering his plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 11 required advising Wallace of the mandatory five‑year probation | State conceded the record does not show the mandatory probation was disclosed but argued the colloquy otherwise complied with Rule 11 | Wallace argued he was unaware his plea carried a five‑year mandatory probation and pleaded unknowingly | Court held Rule 11 requires advising and determining understanding of mandatory minimums; remanded to allow withdrawal of plea because substantial compliance was lacking |
| Denial of appointed counsel | State/Dist. Ct. found Wallace not indigent and able to retain counsel; court noted transfers of assets and prior private counsel | Wallace sought court‑appointed counsel repeatedly, claiming inability to afford counsel | Court held denial did not constitute abuse of discretion given Wallace’s assets, transfers, and retention of private counsel |
| Denial of change of judge / recusal | Presiding judge argued demand was untimely and that record did not support bias | Wallace argued assigned judge was biased and sought disqualification | Court held demand was untimely under N.D.C.C. § 29‑15‑21; presiding judge’s recusal analysis was appropriate but remand should allow the assigned judge to consider recusal if necessary |
| Amendment increasing probation after plea | State moved to correct judgment to impose statutorily required probation | Wallace contended amendment altered his sentence after plea without proper notice | Court upheld that statutory mandatory probation must be imposed but reversed because lack of Rule 11 disclosure invalidated the plea process and required remand for plea withdrawal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Trevino, 807 N.W.2d 211 (2011) (guilty plea must be knowing, intelligent, voluntary and Rule 11 requires substantial compliance)
- Sambursky v. State, 723 N.W.2d 524 (2006) (Rule 11’s disclosure requirements are mandatory)
- State v. Ballard, 874 N.W.2d 61 (2016) (probation is a criminal sanction comparable to incarceration)
- State v. Schweitzer, 510 N.W.2d 612 (N.D. 1994) (failure to advise of mandatory minimum requires plea withdrawal)
- State v. DuPaul, 527 N.W.2d 238 (1995) (standards for appointment of counsel and indigency)
- Rath v. Rath, 895 N.W.2d 315 (2017) (timeliness requirement for change of judge under statute)
- Lund v. Lund, 795 N.W.2d 318 (2011) (test for appearance of judicial impartiality)