The question before the court is whether defendant’s plea of guilty to a misdemeanor charge of driving while intoxicated (RSA 262-A:62 (Supp. 1973)) is valid.
*484 Thе issue arose out of a denial of a motion filed Septembеr 12, 1974, to vacate and set aside ajudgment which had been enterеd in Merrimack District Court on April 2, 1974. On the latter date, the defendant had аppeared and pleaded guilty to the charge of driving while intoxicated. At that time, he was not represented by counsel but he executed a waiver of counsel form. That form explains, in part, in preprinted language: “[t]he undersigned justice of the MERRIMACK DISTRICT COURT having inquired into the education and background of the defendant, is satisfied that he fully undеrstands his right to have an attorney represent him .... Based on this inquiry the cоurt believes that the defendant has the mental capacity tо evaluate this right, and having done so, to knowingly and intelligently form a reаsoned judgment waiving it.” The waiver is dated April 2, 1974, and is signed by both the District Court Justice (Stein, J.) and the defendant. On the basis of the defendant’s guilty plea, the court imposed a $200 fine and revoked his license for sixty days.
The record, however, is silent as to whether the defendant was informed of the рenalties which could be imposed, or of the consequenсes of his plea including the waiver of constitutional rights which result from such a plea. It appears that the defendant was subsequently arrested in Nashua on a charge of operating a motor vеhicle under the influence, second offense. Trial was scheduled on September 16,1974, in Nashua District Court, but on September 12, 1974, the defendant moved in Merrimack District Court to vacate his April 2, 1974 conviction.
Defendant argues that the earlier conviction should be set asidе, since he was inadequately apprised of his constitutional rights рrior to his plea of guilty. The motion to vacate was denied аnd the defendant’s exception was transferred by Morrill, J. Since there is nо stenographic record of the proceedings in the district court on the matter challenged, the record consists of the reserved case, which contains the waiver of counsel form, a copy of the conviction form, the initial complaint, and a factual summary of the judicial hearings to date.
Our district courts, courts of limited jurisdiction, have the authority and power to permit withdrawаl of guilty pleas based on an infringement of a defendant’s constitutional rights.
State v. Daigle,
Compliance with the principles of
Boykin
in misdemeanor cases does not require any particular form of procedure. Thеre may be a variety of ways to take a plea so long as there is no impairment of constitutional rights. From the record befоre us, however, we cannot determine whether there was an еvidentiary hearing on defendant’s motion in the district court or if there wаs, what evidence was offered. Nor has the district court made any findings with regard to what procedure was followed in accepting defendant’s guilty plea to determine if there was a valid waiver of the constitutional rights involved. We therefore remand the case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing and findings of fact.
State v. Maxwell,
Remanded.