Wootan v. State, 994 N.W.2d 347

Wootan was charged with multiple offenses; as part of a plea agreement he pled guilty to manslaughter, attempted aggravated assault on a peace officer, reckless endangerment, and preventing arrest.
Sentences imposed totaled 16 years composed of multiple counts, some with portions suspended; Wootan contends he was told the sentences would run concurrently but they could run consecutively.
Wootan filed a verified application for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel based on (1) counsel’s alleged misinformation that sentences would run concurrently and (2) counsel’s failure to reduce the plea terms to writing.
The district court scheduled an evidentiary hearing; the State filed a tardy motion for summary judgment which the court allowed, then granted summary judgment dismissing Wootan’s application for lack of any material factual dispute.
The Supreme Court held the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the concurrency-advice claim (remanding for an evidentiary hearing) but affirmed summary judgment on the failure-to-write claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel’s advice that sentences would run concurrently constituted ineffective assistance requiring an evidentiary hearing	Wootan: counsel told him sentences would be concurrent; had he known they could be consecutive he would have gone to trial	State: no genuine issue of material fact; summary judgment appropriate	Reversed in part — verified application raises genuine issues under both Strickland prongs; remand for evidentiary hearing
Whether counsel’s failure to reduce plea terms to writing was ineffective assistance	Wootan: counsel should have put plea terms in writing	State: Rule 11 doesn’t require nonconditional pleas be written; no deficiency	Affirmed — plea was not conditional; not ineffective to omit writing
Whether Wootan’s verified post-conviction application may be treated as an affidavit opposing summary judgment	Wootan: verified application constitutes admissible sworn evidence	State: disputed adequacy of evidence to create a material factual issue	Court: Verified application treated as affidavit (per Davies); its statements suffice to raise a factual issue on the concurrency claim

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective assistance test)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (prejudice standard when plea is at issue)
Stein v. State, 920 N.W.2d 477 (attorney misinformation about sentence can be unreasonable)
Davies v. State, 917 N.W.2d 8 (verified post-conviction application may be treated as an affidavit)
Farrell v. State, 606 N.W.2d 524 (not all plea agreements must be reduced to writing)
Campbell v. State, 956 N.W.2d 387 (post-conviction summary dismissal standards)
Myers v. State, 891 N.W.2d 724 (post-conviction proceedings governed by civil rules)