Stewart v. State
2017 ND 77
| N.D. | 2017Background
- In Dec. 2013 Stewart entered a written plea agreement resolving two new aggravated-assault charges, two probation-revocation petitions, a disorderly-conduct charge, and a DUI charge; the district court accepted his guilty pleas after a Rule 11 colloquy.
- Stewart later filed a pro se application for post-conviction relief (May 2015) seeking withdrawal of the guilty pleas, alleging his plea was involuntary and counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain a mental-health evaluation or investigate medication (Ambien) side effects.
- Stewart supplemented his application through counsel with unsworn reports from a clinical psychologist (suggesting possible diminished responsibility) and a pharmacist (noting Ambien could potentially explain amnesia).
- The State moved for summary dismissal; the district court denied relief, concluding Stewart failed to present competent, admissible evidence (affidavits) creating a genuine issue of material fact or showing prejudice from counsel’s actions.
- Stewart appealed, arguing the district court should have held an evidentiary hearing because his submissions raised a genuine factual issue about counsel’s deficient performance and resulting prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Stewart's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stewart raised a genuine issue of material fact to warrant an evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel was objectively unreasonable for failing to obtain a mental-health evaluation and investigate medication side effects; psychologist and pharmacist reports create factual dispute | Stewart offered only unsworn, conclusory allegations and reports; no competent affidavits or evidence establishing mental impairment at the time or resulting prejudice | No — summary dismissal affirmed; Stewart failed to present competent admissible evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact |
| Whether counsel’s alleged omission satisfies Strickland’s deficiency prong in the plea-withdrawal context | Failure to investigate possible lack of criminal responsibility/mitigation was a serious error affecting voluntariness of plea | Record (including Rule 11 colloquy) shows voluntariness; no competent evidence that counsel’s conduct was objectively unreasonable | No — court held Stewart did not demonstrate counsel’s performance fell below objective standard |
| Whether Stewart demonstrated prejudice under Strickland/Hill (i.e., he would have gone to trial) | Reports and asserted testimony would have supported a defense or mitigation, so there is a reasonable probability he would not have pled guilty | No admissible proof that mental impairment or medication would have changed outcome or led Stewart to reject plea | No — Stewart failed to show a reasonable probability of a different outcome or that he would have insisted on trial |
| Whether unsworn expert reports and unsworn testimonial assertions suffice to oppose summary dismissal | The reports and appellate assertions are sufficient to raise factual dispute and trigger an evidentiary hearing | Unsworn reports and brief assertions are not competent evidence; affidavits or comparable sworn evidence required | No — unsworn reports and conclusory assertions insufficient to defeat summary dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (applying Strickland to guilty-plea challenges)
- Lindsey v. State, 852 N.W.2d 383 (N.D. 2014) (guilty-plea ineffective-assistance standards)
- Coppage v. State, 807 N.W.2d 585 (N.D. 2011) (standard for summary dismissal in post-conviction proceedings)
- Henke v. State, 767 N.W.2d 881 (N.D. 2009) (petitioner's burden once put on proof)
- Moore v. State, 839 N.W.2d 834 (N.D. 2013) (withdrawal of guilty plea to correct manifest injustice)
- Damron v. State, 663 N.W.2d 650 (N.D. 2003) (must show specific errors by counsel to overturn plea)
- Klose v. State, 705 N.W.2d 809 (N.D. 2005) (heavy burden to prove both Strickland prongs)
- Garcia v. State, 678 N.W.2d 568 (N.D. 2004) (avoid hindsight in assessing counsel's conduct)
- Stewart v. Ryan, 520 N.W.2d 39 (N.D. 1994) (unsworn statements insufficient to raise material fact)