STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Jad Karter BREINER, Defendant and Appellant.
Criminal No. 960298.
Supreme Court of North Dakota.
April 22, 1997.
1997 ND 71 | 565 N.W.2d 765
C
[¶14] Additionally,
D
[¶15] The hearing officer could have reasonably found the report and notice form was received within five days, and thus the document had been forwarded within the statutory period.
IV
[¶16] The district court‘s judgment is reversed, and the Department of Transportation‘s suspension of Nelson‘s license for 91 days is reinstated.
[¶17] VANDE WALLE, C.J., and NEUMANN, MARING and MESCHKE, JJ., concur.
Robert Wade Martin, Bismarck, for defendant and appellant.
MESCHKE, Justice.
[¶1] Jad Karter Breiner appealed an order denying his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty to a charge of corrupting a minor. We hold the trial court‘s failure to inform Breiner that he must register as a sexual offender caused a manifest injustice so the court abused its discretion in denying withdrawal of Breiner‘s guilty plea. We reverse and remand with instructions.
[¶2] Breiner was charged with a class A misdemeanor for violating
[¶3] The court accepted Breiner‘s guilty plea and sentenced him to 12 months imprisonment but suspended six months during two years of supervised probation. The registration requirement was not spelled out in the judgment nor in any other court record.
[¶4] Breiner claims he first learned about the registration requirement from State Penitentiary officials when he was imprisoned. On June 15, 1996, Breiner wrote the trial court, stating,
... the problem is sir, that no-one [sic] told me that I would have to registar [sic] as a sex offender, and under that reason alone I would have not plead guilty without a change by the States [sic] attorney or by going to trial. So I would please like a court appointed attorney so that I can have help in removing my plea of guilty. Which would not have been made if all of the undisclosed parts of the sentencing would have been known.
Shortly, Breiner‘s attorney formally moved to withdraw his guilty plea. The trial court concluded Breiner failed to show manifest injustice in the court‘s acceptance of the guilty plea, and denied the motion. Breiner appealed.
[¶5] Criminal procedure permits a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea when it “is necessary to correct a manifest injustice.”
The court may not accept a plea of guilty without first, by addressing the defendant personally in open court, informing the defendant of and determining that the defendant understands the following:
*
*
*
*
*
*
(2) The mandatory minimum punishment, if any, and the maximum possible punishment provided by the statute defining the offense to which the plea is offered....
[¶7] Registration as a sexual offender is a collateral, not a direct, consequence of a conviction, many appellate courts have concluded, so that a sentencing court‘s failure to advise the defendant about it is not grounds for withdrawal of the guilty plea. See, e.g., Matter of B.G.M., 929 S.W.2d 604, 606-607 (Tex.App.1996); Johnson v. State, 922 P.2d 1384, 1387 (Wyo.1996); State v. Ward, 123 Wash.2d 488, 869 P.2d 1062, 1075 (1994); State v. Young, 112 Ariz. 361, 542 P.2d 20, 22 (1975); see also Annot., State Statutes or Ordinances Requiring Persons Previously Convicted of Crime to Register With Authorities, 36 A.L.R.5th 161, § 9 (1996). This majority view reasons that laws requiring a sexual offender to register are largely remedial, not punitive, and are designed to facilitate law enforcement and to protect children.
[¶8] In contrast, California holds that sexual offender registration is a direct consequence of conviction and that the sentencing court must advise a defendant of the requirement before accepting the guilty plea. People v. McClellan, 6 Cal.4th 367, 24 Cal. Rptr.2d 739, 745, 862 P.2d 739 (1993) (“error has occurred when the trial court fails to advise a defendant that, as a consequence of [a] plea of guilty ... the defendant must register as a sex offender.“); see also In re Birch, 10 Cal.3d 314, 110 Cal.Rptr. 212, 216, 515 P.2d 12 (1973). We are persuaded by the California Supreme Court‘s rationale that the registration requirement imposes a grave, and even onerous, additional punishment, especially for a misdemeanor offense:
[I]n view of the unusual and onerous nature of the sex registration requirement that follows inexorably from a conviction ... the trial court‘s duty surely included an obligation to advise petitioner of this sanction prior to accepting his guilty plea.
*
*
*
*
*
*
While petitioner possibly might have suspected that a guilty plea could result in a short jail sentence, we cannot believe that he was aware that as a consequence of urinating in a parking lot at 1:30 in the morning he would be required to register as a sex offender. Certainly counsel would have advised him of this grave and direct consequence of his guilty plea; in the absence of counsel the responsibility for such advice rested with the court. Without this advice, we conclude that petitioner‘s waiver of counsel and plea of guilty cannot be regarded as having been knowingly and intelligently made.
Birch, 110 Cal.Rptr. at 216-217, 515 P.2d 12. (Emphasis original). This reasoning corresponds to the statutory obligation of the sentencing court expressed in our North Dakota registration law.
[¶9] Whatever the remedial aspect of our sexual offender registration law, our Legislature clearly imposed a duty on the sentencing court to inform a pleading defendant about this consequence of the conviction:
After a person has pled guilty to or been found guilty of a crime against a child or an attempted crime against a child, or after a person has pled guilty to or been found guilty as a sexual offender, the court shall impose, in addition to any penalty provided by law, a requirement that the
person register, within ten days of coming into a county in which the person resides or is temporarily domiciled, with the chief of police of the city or the sheriff of the county if the person resides in an area other than a city. The court shall require a person to register by stating this requirement on the court records.
[¶10] The sentencing court here neither asked Breiner if his counsel had told him about the requirement, nor advised Breiner of the registration requirement on the record. The court also failed to express the requirement in the judgment of conviction or court records, as required by law.
[¶11] While in prison, Breiner wrote the court he was not “told” about the registration requirement until prison officials did. If Breiner did not know about the requirement, we believe the trial court‘s failure to advise Breiner of it at the plea and its subsequent failure to place the requirement in the sentencing records or judgment of conviction resulted in a manifest injustice. We conclude, therefore, the trial court abused its discretion in denying Breiner‘s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
[¶12] Breiner was represented by counsel at the plea hearing. While a defense counsel need not inform a client “of every conceivable nuance of pleading guilty,” State v. Dalman, 520 N.W.2d at 864, an attorney has a duty to inform a client about relevant consequences of the charge and a plea so that the client can make informed decisions. City of Fargo v. Bommersbach, 511 N.W.2d 563, 566 (N.D. 1994). This record does not show whether Breiner‘s counsel had advised him before the plea and sentence about the sex-offender-registration requirement.
[¶13] On remand, the trial court may hold an evidentiary hearing on whether Breiner, before pleading guilty, knew about the sexual-offender-registration requirement, notwithstanding the court‘s failure to advise him of it. See McClellan, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d at 746, 862 P.2d 739 (“when the trial court formally imposed the registration requirement later in the sentencing hearing, the defense had a second opportunity to challenge it but failed to do so” so “defendant waived any claim of prejudice arising from the trial court‘s error“). If Breiner knew about the need to register when he pled guilty, the court‘s failure to inform him about it would have been harmless error, not a manifest injustice. If so, the court could appropriately deny withdrawal of the guilty plea.
[¶14] We reverse and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion on Breiner‘s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
[¶15] MARING, J., concurs.
VANDE WALLE, Chief Justice, concurring specially.
[¶16] This case is distinguishable from State v. Dalman, 520 N.W.2d 860 (N.D.1994) only because
[¶17] It therefore is difficult to conclude the withdrawal of the plea is necessary to correct a “manifest injustice.”
[¶19] Nor do I believe the other California decisions cited by the majority are particularly persuasive on the issue of whether or not the trial court must advise the defendant of the registration requirement prior to a plea. People v. McClellan, 6 Cal.4th 367, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 739, 862 P.2d 739 (1993) disposed of the issue of whether the trial court must advise the defendant of the sex offender registration requirement by relying on Bunnell v. Superior Court, 13 Cal.3d 592, 119 Cal.Rptr. 302, 531 P.2d 1086 (1975). But, Bunnell was a murder case, the issue was double jeopardy and, in discussing the consequences of a plea of guilty, the Court held such things as advising defendant of right to counsel, right to a jury trial, right to confront and cross-examine witnesses and right against self-incrimination must appear on the record. The Court also stated the defendant must be “advised of the direct consequences of conviction such as the permissible range of punishment provided by statute, ... registration requirements, if any....” (Emphasis supplied.) 119 Cal.Rptr. at 310, 531 P.2d at 1094.
[¶20] Thus, in Bunnell the requirement to advise of the registration requirement as a direct consequence is dicta and is akin to what this Court now requires by rule. See
[¶21] I continue to adhere to our holding in Dalman. Yet, here section
[¶22] VANDE WALLE, C.J.
NEUMANN, Justice, dissenting.
[¶23] For some reason, never explained, the majority assumes
[¶24] NEUMANN, J.
SANDSTROM, Justice, dissenting.
[¶25] Because I would follow the majority of states, I dissent from the position of the majority of this Court. Contrary to the assertion of the majority opinion, no “manifest injustice” arises from the failure of the trial court to advise the defendant at the time of sentencing of his duty to register as a sexual offender.
[¶26] Even the majority of this Court, at ¶ 7, concedes “[r]egistration as a sexual offender is a collateral, not a direct, consequence of a conviction.” Trial courts have no duty to advise defendants of collateral consequences of a guilty plea. State v. Dalman, 520 N.W.2d 860, 863 (N.D.1994).
[¶27] The trial court‘s statutory duty to advise the defendant of the duty to register as a sexual offender specifically attaches after, not before, a guilty plea or verdict.
[¶28] I specifically reject the majority opinion‘s adoption, at ¶ 8, of the minority view expressed by California courts of the “onerous nature of the sex[-offender] registration requirement that follows inexorably from a conviction.” Birch at 216. The defendant‘s conviction of a sex crime is a matter of public record without the registration requirement. I agree with the majority of states; requiring sex offenders to advise law enforcement of their whereabouts is remedial, protective, and a minimal burden. See, e.g., State v. Manning, 532 N.W.2d 244, 248-49 (Minn.App.1995).
[¶29] I would affirm.
[¶30] NEUMANN, J., concurs.