Stein v. State
2018 ND 264
| N.D. | 2018Background
- Rocky Stein was charged with criminal vehicular homicide after a 2013 crash in which the other driver died; he pled guilty to an amended manslaughter charge while represented by counsel.
- Stein was sentenced to ten years with three years suspended; he later filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel before his plea.
- Stein alleged multiple deficiencies: failure to advise about new law on warrantless blood draws, expedited plea process tied to counsel leaving the office, inadequate opportunity to review/submit PSIR and medical/addiction evidence, failure to obtain an expert, and incorrect advice about likely sentence (including failure to advise about an 85% mandatory service requirement).
- The State moved for summary dismissal; the district court reviewed Stein’s filings, the plea transcript, and PSIR, and granted summary disposition concluding most of Stein’s assertions were contradicted by the record.
- The district court did not address Stein’s specific claim that he was not informed of the statutory 85% service requirement or that counsel told him he likely would receive probation.
- The Supreme Court affirmed summary dismissal as to most claims but reversed and remanded as to the 85%/probation-advice allegations, ordering an evidentiary hearing on those points.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s overall performance was constitutionally deficient (Strickland first prong) | Stein: counsel failed to advise on law developments, rushed the plea, omitted/included PSIR or medical info improperly, failed to obtain experts | State: record (transcript, PSIR) contradicts Stein’s factual claims; no genuine factual dispute | Court: majority of factual allegations are contradicted by record; summary dismissal proper for those claims |
| Whether counsel misadvised about mandatory 85% custody requirement | Stein: counsel did not inform him of 85% service rule for manslaughter; says he would not have pled otherwise | State: did not identify record showing the 85% rule was explained; district court did not address this claim | Court: district court erred by not addressing it; factual dispute exists and requires evidentiary hearing |
| Whether counsel misled Stein into expecting probation | Stein: counsel told him a sentence was likely limited to probation | State: record lacks clear support for that assertion; other parts of record suggest Stein was informed of sentencing range | Held: allegation not resolved by record; requires evidentiary hearing along with 85% claim |
| Whether prejudice exists (Strickland second prong) — i.e., would Stein have gone to trial but for counsel’s errors | Stein: affidavit states he would not have pled guilty had he known about the 85% rule / probation unlikelihood | State: contends no reasonable probability shown given record and plea proceedings | Held: because the 85%/probation advice claims survive summary disposition, Stein is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to prove prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (prejudice standard for guilty-plea challenges: defendant must show he would have insisted on trial)
- Sambursky v. State, 723 N.W.2d 524 (N.D. 2006) (misinformation about time to be served can raise genuine issue requiring hearing)
- Johnson v. State, 714 N.W.2d 832 (N.D. 2006) (burden and framework for ineffective-assistance claims in North Dakota)
- Henke v. State, 767 N.W.2d 881 (N.D. 2009) (district court should consider evidence outside record when appropriate on ineffective-assistance claims)