State v. Dalman

• Decision Date: 24 August 1994
• Docket Number: Cr. N
• Citation: 520 N.W.2d 860
• Parties: STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Donald S. DALMAN, Defendant and Appellant. STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Paulette DALMAN, Defendant and Appellant. os. 940034, 940035.
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Page 860

520 N.W.2d 860

STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Donald S. DALMAN, Defendant and Appellant.

STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Paulette DALMAN, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. Nos. 940034, 940035.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

Aug. 24, 1994.

Robin L. Olson (argued), Nelson Law Office, Fargo, for defendants and appellants.

Robert Allan Freed, Asst. State's Atty. (argued), Jamestown, for plaintiff and appellee.

NEUMANN, Justice.

Donald and Paulette Dalman, husband and wife, seeking post-conviction relief, appeal from the district court orders denying their motions to withdraw their pleas of guilty. We dismiss Donald's appeal, and affirm the district court order denying Paulette's motion to withdraw her guilty plea.

Donald and Paulette Dalman, Canadian citizens, were charged with six counts of class B felony security violations on February 27, 1992. Originally, both Donald and Paulette were represented by the same court-appointed attorney. In mid-March 1992, they each retained the same private attorney. On May 5, 1992, a plea hearing was held in district court. N.D.R.Crim.P. Rule 11. The Dalmans agreed to plead guilty to two counts of class C felony theft. The securities violations complaints were dismissed. The Dalmans were given deferred impositions of sentence for a period of three years.

On November 12, 1993, the Dalmans moved that their guilty pleas be withdrawn and their convictions vacated. They argued ineffective assistance of counsel and noncompliance with Rule 11, N.D.R.Crim.P. A hearing was held on December 20, 1993, at which Paulette testified for both herself and her husband. The district court denied the motions. It is from these orders the Dalmans appeal. Both cases have been consolidated for purposes of appeal.

DONALD

Donald died in April of 1994, after filing this appeal, but before this decision. Arguing the appeal is moot, the State moves to dismiss Donald's appeal. Donald's attorney resists this motion on the ground that dismissal would violate Donald's due process rights. He argues that Donald has the right to withdraw his guilty plea in order to clear his name and memory. We disagree.

This is not a direct appeal from a conviction; the time for such an appeal passed long ago. This is an appeal from an order upon an application for post-conviction relief. We do not give advisory opinions. E.g., Gosbee v. Bendish et al., 512 N.W.2d 450 (N.D.1994). Appeals are dismissed if the issues become moot or academic, such that no actual controversy is left to be determined. Id. In this case, the death of the appellant moots this appeal. ¹ Jackson v. State, 559 So.2d 320 (Fla.App.1990); see generally Annotation, Comment Note--When Criminal Case Becomes Moot so as to Preclude Review of or Attack on Conviction or Sentence, 9 ALR3d 462, 496-97 (1966 & Supp.) (majority of states hold that death of accused moots appeal); but see State v. Witkowski, 163 Wis.2d 985, 473 N.W.2d 512 (Ct.App.1991) (upholding State v. McDonald, 144 Wis.2d 531, 424 N.W.2d 411 (1988), taking minority position that right to appeal survives death of defendant who dies while pursuing post-conviction relief). We dismiss his appeal.

PAULETTE

On appeal, Paulette argues the district court erred in not granting her motion to withdraw her guilty plea. She bases this contention on three factors: (1) that the sentencing court failed to inform her of the possibility of being deported, (2) that her attorneys failed to inform her of possible conflicts of interest that might arise due to joint representation, and (3) that her attorneys also failed to inform her of the possibility of being deported. She argues the result was a manifest injustice.

"The court shall allow the defendant to withdraw a plea of guilty whenever the defendant, upon a timely motion for withdrawal, proves that withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice." N.D.R.Crim.P. Rule 32(d)(1); e.g., State v. Trieb, 516 N.W.2d 287 (N.D.1994). Withdrawal motions are timely if made with due diligence considering the nature of the allegations being made. ² Rule 32(d)(2). "The determination of whether or not there has been a manifest injustice supporting withdrawal of a guilty plea lies within the trial court's discretion and will not be reversed on appeal except for an abuse of discretion." Trieb, 516 N.W.2d at 290 (quoting State v. Zeno, 490 N.W.2d 711, 713 (N.D.1992)). An abuse of discretion occurs under this rule when the court's legal discretion is not exercised in the interest of justice. E.g., Trieb, 516 N.W.2d at 290-91. In this case, such an abuse has not occurred.

I

Paulette argues the sentencing court did not comply with Rule 11 of the North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure. She argues Rule 11 required the sentencing court to inform her that deportation was a possible consequence of pleading guilty, and that this noncompliance resulted in an involuntary plea. Although failure to comply with Rule 11 may result in a manifest injustice justifying withdrawal of a guilty plea, e.g. State v. Boushee, 459 N.W.2d 552 (N.D.1990), Rule 11 does not require this deportation notification. We are not convinced the district court abused its discretion in refusing to grant Paulette's motion on these grounds.

The sentencing court did not inform Paulette that she could be deported from the United States because of this criminal conviction. Rule 11 requires the sentencing court to inform the defendant of the "mandatory minimum punishment, if any, and the maximum possible punishment provided by the statute defining the offense to which the plea is offered." Rule 11(b)(2). The court adequately informed Paulette of the maximum penalty that could be imposed for violation of NDCC Sec. 12.1-23-02. See NDCC Sec. 12.1-32-01 (maximum penalty for class C felony is five years of imprisonment, a five thousand dollar fine, or both). There was no mandatory minimum. Deportation was a collateral consequence of the plea. ³ Defendants need not be informed of all collateral consequences of guilty pleas. We join the prevailing trend of states that have held sentencing courts need not inform defendants of the collateral consequence of deportation in order for pleas to be voluntary. Tafoya v. State, 500 P.2d 247 (Alaska 1972); Alpizar v. United States, 595 A.2d 991 (D.C.1991) (under prior law); State v. Hasnan, 806 S.W.2d 54 (Mo.Ct.App.1991), reh'g denied; State v. Chung, 210 N.J.Super. 427, 510 A.2d 72 (1986); People v. Williams, 189 A.D.2d 910, 592 N.Y.S.2d 471 (1993), appeal denied; State v. Malik, 37 Wash.App. 414, 680 P.2d 770 (1984); State v. Baeza, 174 Wis.2d 118, 496 N.W.2d 233 (Ct.App.1993); Carson v. State, 755 P.2d 242 (Wyo.1988).

II

Paulette asserts two areas in which she believes the conduct of her attorneys was so deficient as to warrant withdrawal of her guilty plea. ⁴ First, she argues that the alleged failure of her privately retained attorney to inform her of the possibility of deportation proceedings if she plead guilty was ineffective assistance of counsel leading to a manifest injustice warranting withdrawal of her plea. Second, she argues that the alleged failure of her attorneys to inform her of possible conflicts of interest that could arise from having the same attorney represent both her and Donald resulted in a manifest injustice warranting withdrawal of her plea.

Paulette has the burden of proving that her counsel's assistance was ineffective. E.g., Stoppleworth v. State, 501 N.W.2d 325, 327 (N.D.1993). Her burden is two-fold; first, she must prove her counsel's performance was deficient, and second, she must prove that the deficient performance prejudiced her. E.g., id. There is a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. E.g., id. Paulette fails to meet her burden of proof for both allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Paulette's motion.

A

In State v. Stai, 335 N.W.2d 798, 801 (N.D.1983), we said that "a defendant may not withdraw a guilty plea entered in reliance on h[er] counsel's 'bad advice' when the advice given is within the range of competence required of attorneys representing defendants in criminal cases." The district court found that Paulette failed to produce any evidence "which would indicate that [her] counsel provided ineffective assistance to [her] in negotiating [her] plea[ ] of guilty." She relies on the bare assertion that she should have been informed of the possibility of deportation.

This is the first time this court has addressed the issue of whether attorneys have a duty to inform defendants about possible deportation consequences of guilty pleas. We therefore rely on the substantial body of case law from other states addressing this issue. ⁵ For example, the Iowa Supreme court reasoned "that failure to advise a defendant concerning collateral consequences, even serious ones, cannot provide a basis for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel." Mott v. State, 407 N.W.2d 581, 583 (Iowa 1987). See also Oyekoya v. State, 558 So.2d 990 (Ala.Crim.App.1989), cert. denied (counsel's failure to advise defendant of collateral consequences, such as deportation, is not ineffective assistance of counsel); Tafoya v. State, 500 P.2d 247 (Alaska 1972), cert. denied (failure of counsel to inform defendant of possible collateral consequence of deportation did not rise to level of ineffective assistance of counsel); State v. Casseus, 513 So.2d 1045 (Fla.1987) (counsel's failure to advise client of collateral consequence of deportation did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel); State v. Chung, 210 N.J.Super. 427, 510 A.2d 72 (1986) (counsel did not render inefficient assistance of counsel by failing to inform defendant of possible collateral consequence of deportation); People v. Dor, 132 Misc.2d 568, 505 N.Y.S.2d 317 (N.Y.App.Div.1986) (failure to discuss...