Thompson v. State
879 N.W.2d 93
| N.D. | 2016Background
- In 1992 Ronald Thompson pled guilty to gross sexual imposition after being informed (by counsel/State) there was DNA evidence “against” him; he was sentenced to 10 years with 3 years suspended and completed sentence/probation.
- In 2012 Thompson filed a post-conviction relief (PCR) petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to obtain/produce an independent DNA test, investigate alleged alibi witnesses, hire a private investigator, and develop trial strategy.
- At a 2013 evidentiary hearing Thompson testified counsel told him of incriminating DNA results and advised him to plead guilty; counsel recalled seeing an FBI DNA report but had destroyed his file and did not recall showing it to Thompson.
- The district court ordered the FBI to check records; the FBI reported no records of a DNA sample/test for this case, and the parties agreed that absence of FBI records supported a conclusion no test was performed (the State did not formally stipulate).
- The district court denied PCR, finding Thompson failed to show prejudice under Strickland because sufficient non-DNA evidence supported guilt; Thompson appealed arguing the court applied the wrong Strickland standard for guilty pleas.
- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded because the district court used the wrong prejudice inquiry (jury verdict probability) instead of whether Thompson would have declined the plea and insisted on trial but for counsel’s alleged error; remand required factual findings under the correct Strickland test.
Issues
| Issue | Thompson's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Thompson received ineffective assistance of counsel in advising his guilty plea | Counsel relied on statements that DNA existed and was against Thompson and failed to obtain/show the DNA report, so counsel performed unreasonably and prejudiced plea decision | Evidence apart from DNA supported conviction; even without DNA a reasonable defendant would likely accept plea; State disputed stipulation that no testing occurred | Reversed and remanded for district court to analyze prejudice under the guilty-plea Strickland standard (whether Thompson would have insisted on trial) and, if necessary, address performance prong |
| Proper prejudice standard for ineffective-assistance claims following a guilty plea | Thompson: must show reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pled guilty and would have insisted on trial | State: used a jury-verdict sufficiency inquiry to assess prejudice | Court: Wrong standard used by district court; correct standard is whether Thompson would have declined the plea and insisted on going to trial; remand required |
| Sufficiency of evidence that no DNA test/report ever existed | Thompson: lack of FBI records indicates no DNA test was performed; supports claim counsel misrepresented results | State: did not stipulate absence of testing and pointed to contemporaneous record items suggesting testing occurred (search warrant, continuance for FBI tests) | Supreme Court did not decide existence of the report; remanded for district court factfinding (comments by concurring/dissenting justice noted the record is equivocal and highlighted burden on Thompson to prove report absent) |
| Application of laches/ procedural delay to PCR | Thompson: petition filed before new statutory time limits; undue delay not raised by State | State: did not raise laches below (affirmative defense) | Concurring opinion noted laches is available but was not raised by State and thus waived; court did not apply laches |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes performance and prejudice test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Lindsey v. State, 852 N.W.2d 383 (N.D. 2014) (prejudice inquiry for guilty-plea ineffective-assistance claims: reasonable probability defendant would have insisted on trial)
- Rencountre v. State, 860 N.W.2d 837 (N.D. 2015) (discusses Strickland burden and assessing prejudice in context of the record)
- Bahtiraj v. State, 840 N.W.2d 605 (N.D. 2013) (explains evaluation of plea withdrawal claims and the need to predict likely trial outcome)
- Damron v. State, 663 N.W.2d 650 (N.D. 2003) (limits collateral attacks on voluntary, intelligent guilty pleas absent serious derelictions by counsel)