State v. Yost, 914 N.W.2d 508

Background

Yost pleaded Alford to five counts of gross sexual imposition in Aug. 2013; six counts were dismissed under a plea agreement.
After plea, presentence investigation occurred; Yost later sought new counsel and raised ineffective-assistance claims.
At a Jan. 2014 sentencing Yost appeared without counsel; this Court (Yost I) reversed and remanded for resentencing with appointed counsel only.
Yost moved in 2016 to withdraw his guilty pleas; the district court denied the motion in Sept. 2017 and later amended judgments; Yost appealed.
The district court found (1) the guilty pleas had been accepted at the change-of-plea hearing, (2) Yost’s plea substantially complied with Rule 11, and (3) withdrawal would substantially prejudice the State.

Issues

Issue	Yost's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Yost could withdraw pleas "as of right" after remand	Remand vacated judgment and returned him to stage where withdrawal is as of right	Remand only reversed sentence; plea had been accepted in 2013	Court: plea had been accepted; not a right-to-withdraw situation; denial affirmed
Applicable standard for post-acceptance, pre-resentencing withdrawal	Fair-and-just reasons (because sentencing had been vacated)	Manifest-injustice is allowable; district court applied manifest-injustice	Court: manifest-injustice standard permissible; district court made findings sufficient under either standard
Compliance with N.D.R.Crim.P. 11 (advisements & factual basis)	District court failed to personally advise on all Rule 11 elements and later-amended Rule 11(b)(4) should apply after remand	The change-of-plea substantially complied with Rule 11; Alford pleas and counsel’s acknowledgements satisfied factual-basis requirements; new rule not retroactive	Court: substantial compliance with Rule 11; acceptance of Alford pleas was proper
Ineffective assistance at change-of-plea hearing	Hartl’s failures (Miranda suppression not filed; incorrect charge elements) made plea involuntary; would have gone to trial but for counsel	Record shows Yost knowingly accepted plea; no objective proof of constitutionally deficient performance or prejudice	Court: record does not plainly show ineffective assistance; claim fails on direct appeal
Jurisdiction to amend judgment while appeal pending	(Yost) District court lacked jurisdiction to amend judgment after notice of appeal	(State agrees) trial court barred from acting during pendency of appeal	Court: second amended judgment vacated; remand to correct clerical sentencing error

Key Cases Cited

State v. Yost, 855 N.W.2d 829 (N.D. 2014) (remanded for resentencing with appointed counsel)
State v. Bates, 726 N.W.2d 595 (N.D. 2007) (standards for plea withdrawal)
State v. Lium, 758 N.W.2d 711 (N.D. 2008) (burden shifts and substantial prejudice analysis)
State v. Millner, 409 N.W.2d 642 (N.D. 1987) (trial court must make specific findings when relying on prejudice)
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1970) (Alford-plea validity and factual-basis principles)
State v. Welch, 356 N.W.2d 147 (N.D. 1984) (withdrawing plea before court acceptance)
State v. Abdi, 608 N.W.2d 292 (N.D. 2000) (manifest injustice and Rule 11 substantial compliance)
State v. Dimmitt, 665 N.W.2d 692 (N.D. 2003) (procedural errors can constitute manifest injustice)
State v. Gunwall, 522 N.W.2d 183 (N.D. 1994) (satisfaction of Rule 11 may be shown from whole record)
Mackey v. State, 819 N.W.2d 539 (N.D. 2012) (distinguishing Rule 11 subparts and who must be addressed)
State v. Meier, 422 N.W.2d 381 (N.D. 1988) (trial court lacks jurisdiction to alter sentence after appeal)