State v. Thompson, Cr. N
Decision Date | 10 August 1993 |
Docket Number | Cr. N |
Citation | 504 N.W.2d 315 |
Parties | STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Ronald Scott THOMPSON, Defendant and Appellant. o. 930057. |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Patricia L. Burke, State's Atty., Bismarck, for plaintiff and appellee.
Michael R. Hoffman, Bismarck, for defendant and appellant.
We are asked to allow a defendant to withdraw his guilty plea because the trial judge did not follow the State's nonbinding recommendation for sentencing.
Ronald Scott Thompson seeks to withdraw his plea of guilty to the charge of gross sexual imposition, 1 a class B felony. 2 Thompson entered his guilty plea based on the State's agreement to recommend a sentence of no more than six years to be served concurrently with other sentences. The State made that recommendation. The judge imposed a greater sentence: a ten-year sentence to be served consecutively with other sentences. Three of the ten years were suspended subject to attendance at the prison sex offender's program. Three months later, the defendant moved to withdraw his plea. The trial court denied the motion. We affirm.
Shortly before 8:00 on the morning of December 20, 1991, Thompson entered the home of a 42-year-old Bismarck woman he did not know. Using physical force, and pressing a knife against the victim's throat, he pulled her from the shower. He forced her to engage in an oral sexual act. The victim was cut with the knife and suffered other physical injuries. Thompson ordered the woman into the shower. She entered the bathroom and turned on the shower, but to preserve evidence, she did not enter the shower. As soon as Thompson left the house, she called 911, reported the offense, and gave a detailed description of the man. Thompson was spotted on foot a short distance away. An officer saw him enter a house. After the house was surrounded officers were admitted by another occupant of the house. Thompson had entered the shower and put some clothing in the washing machine.
Physical evidence included semen and pubic hair at the crime scene, and clothing secured by search warrant.
On August 18, 1992, the day set for trial, Thompson changed his plea to guilty.
Thompson described for the court how he had committed the offense. The court inquired about the victim:
The court then accepted the plea and delayed sentencing until the presentencing investigation and report could be completed and reviewed.
The report of the presentence investigation revealed a lengthy criminal history, and included a victim impact statement. At the sentencing hearing, the State's Attorney repeated the agreed upon sentencing recommendation, making clear it was a recommendation only:
The defense attorney asked the court to accept the recommendation:
"In [my October 5, 1992] letter I asked the Court to accept the recommendation of six years in the North Dakota State Penitentiary and I would ask the Court to give credit back to December 20th ... I would ask the Court to follow that recommendation and sentence according to that recommendation."
The defendant declined an offer to speak on his own behalf. The judge told the defendant:
Neither the defendant nor his attorney objected to the sentence at that time. Both the defendant and his attorney said they had no questions about the sentence. Three months later, the defendant moved to withdraw his plea on the grounds that the prosecutor's sentencing recommendation was not followed by the court.
The trial court denied the motion, stating: "The defendant was fully aware of his rights and no binding agreement had been entered into between the parties."
Rule 32(d), N.D.R.Crim.P., provides:
The standard for review of guilty pleas after sentence is "manifest injustice." The defendant has the burden of proof, and the decision is within the trial court's discretion. State v. Werre, 325 N.W.2d 172, 174 (N.D.1982). On appeal, we decide only if the court abused its discretion. Absent an abuse of discretion, the trial court's decision will stand. State v. Hamann, 262 N.W.2d 495, 501 (N.D.1978).
In this case, the State agreed to recommend a particular sentence. It was a nonbinding recommendation only. A nonbinding recommendation of sentence and a binding plea agreement under Rule 11(d), N.D.R.Crim.P., are not the same. State v. Werre, 453 N.W.2d 826 (N.D.1990). The State fulfilled its obligation when it made the specified nonbinding recommendation. See United States v. Khoury, 755 F.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Thompson v. State
...exceeded the State's recommendation. The court denied this request. Thompson appealed his sentence, and we affirmed. State v. Thompson, 504 N.W.2d 315 (N.D.1993).[¶ 21] In 2012 Thompson applied for post-conviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. He alleged his counsel fa......
-
State v. Lium
...v. State, 2003 ND 27, ¶¶ 9-12, 657 N.W.2d 238 (same); DeCoteau v. State, 504 N.W.2d 552, 558 n. 2 (N.D.1993) (same); State v. Thompson, 504 N.W.2d 315, 319 (N.D.1993) [¶ 12] In DeCoteau, 504 N.W.2d at 558 n. 2, we recognized that plea agreements in what is now N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(1) may hav......
-
Peltier v. State
...recommendation of sentence and a binding plea agreement under N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(d) are significantly different. See State v. Thompson, 504 N.W.2d 315, 319 (N.D.1993). If the parties agree to a nonbinding recommendation of sentence, the State fulfills its obligation when it makes the specifie......
-
State v. Klein, 960146
...cannot withdraw the plea unless withdrawal is necessary to correct a "manifest injustice." N.D.R.Crim.P. 32(d)(1); State v. Thompson, 504 N.W.2d 315, 319 (N.D.1993). D ¶16 After a plea has been accepted, we review a district court's denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea for an abuse ......