Waslaski v. State, 828 N.W.2d 787

In October 1988 Waslaski pled guilty to 39 counts of burglary under a plea agreement and received 12 years with 3 years suspended, plus 71 days credit.
He later faced federal convictions, leading to a post-conviction relief petition filed in October 2011.
Waslaski argued his plea was not entered knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily because he could not review transcripts and because potential future sentence enhancements were not explained.
The stenographic notes from the original proceedings were destroyed; no transcript existed, and the court reporter is deceased along with the sentencing judge.
The district court denied relief, concluding there was no duty to inform about collateral consequences of future convictions and that lack of a transcript did not warrant relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Duty to inform about future penalties	Waslaski contends the court had a duty to inform him of potential future sentence enhancements.	Waslaski argues there was never such a duty; enhancements are collateral consequences.	No duty to advise about collateral future penalties.
Effect of destroyed transcripts on post-conviction relief	Destruction of transcripts deprives counsel of review and prejudices relief.	No genuine issue of material fact; absence of transcript does not mandate relief.	Lack of stenographic notes does not entitle relief; no genuine issue of material fact.
Knowingly and voluntarily entered guilty plea	Plea was not entered knowingly due to lack of record and later claims of ineffective assistance.	Plea terms and rights were explained in the agreement and clerk’s notes show plea accepted.	Plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered; no reversible error shown.
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel ineffective for inability to review a transcript.	Preservation failure; not properly raised below.	Ineffective assistance 'not preserved' for review.

Odom v. State, 2010 ND 65 (N.D. 2010) (post-conviction relief governed by civil procedure rules; summary disposition when no genuine issue)
Kaiser v. State, 2005 ND 49 (N.D. 2005) (summary judgment style review for post-conviction relief applies)
Wilson v. State, 1999 ND 222 (N.D. 1999) (appeal from summary denial reviewed like summary judgment)
Houle v. State, 482 N.W.2d 24 (N.D. 1992) (distinguishes direct vs collateral consequences of a guilty plea)
Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103 (S. Ct. 2013) (collateral consequences not retroactive; Padilla does not apply retroactively)