State v. Watson

• Decision Date: 18 February 2021
• Docket Number: No. 20200109,20200109
• Citation: 954 N.W.2d 679
• Parties: STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. James Glenn WATSON, Defendant and Appellant
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

954 N.W.2d 679

STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.James Glenn WATSON, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20200109

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

FILED FEBRUARY 18, 2021

Amy G. Pikovsky, Assistant State's Attorney, Dickinson, ND, for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.

Kiara C. Kraus-Parr, Grand Forks, ND, for defendant and appellant.

VandeWalle, Justice.

[¶1] James Watson appealed from an order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to the offense of continuous sexual abuse of a child. Watson argues the district court failed to properly analyze his understanding of the terms of the plea agreement and the court did not make factual findings or legal conclusions to support its decision. We affirm.

I

[¶2] Watson was charged with continuous sexual abuse of a child in Golden Valley County, gross sexual imposition in Hettinger County, and continuous sexual abuse of a child in Stark County. All three cases involved the same victim. A jury convicted Watson of continuous sexual abuse of a child in the Golden Valley County case. He entered Alford conditional guilty pleas to the charge of continuous sexual abuse of a child in the Stark County case and to an amended charge of sexual assault in the Hettinger County case.

[¶3] Watson appealed from the criminal judgments in all three cases, arguing his statutory speedy trial right was violated in each case. See State v. Watson , 2019 ND 164, ¶ 1, 930 N.W.2d 145. This Court reversed the judgment in the Golden Valley County case, holding Watson's speedy trial right was violated. Id. at ¶ 41. However, we affirmed the judgments in the Hettinger and Stark County cases, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting the motions for continuances. Id. at ¶ 34.

[¶4] After the appeal, Watson moved to withdraw his guilty plea in the Stark County case. He claimed that he pled guilty contingent on the fact that he was convicted in the Golden Valley County case and that he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea in the Stark County case because his conviction in Golden Valley County was overturned on appeal. The State opposed the motion, arguing there was no basis to withdraw the plea. After a hearing, the district court denied Watson's motion. The court found no manifest injustice and denied Watson's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

II

[¶5] Watson argues the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. He contends the court did not make findings about his understanding of the terms of his plea agreement and the court's failure to properly analyze his understanding of the terms of the agreement is an abuse of discretion.

[¶6] Rule 11(d) of the North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure governs a defendant's motion to withdraw a guilty plea and provides different standards for withdrawing the plea depending on when the motion to withdraw is made. See State v. Yost , 2018 ND 157, ¶ 6, 914 N.W.2d 508. "Unless the defendant proves that withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice, the defendant may not withdraw a plea of guilty after the court has imposed sentence." N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(d)(2). The defendant has the burden to prove a manifest injustice exists. Dodge v. State , 2020 ND 100, ¶ 13, 942 N.W.2d 478.

[¶7] "The [district] court has discretion in finding whether a manifest injustice necessitating the withdrawal of a guilty plea exists, and we review the court's decision for abuse of discretion." Dodge , 2020 ND 100, ¶ 13, 942 N.W.2d 478 (quoting State v. Howard , 2011 ND 117, ¶ 3, 798 N.W.2d 675 ). A court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or capricious manner, or it misinterprets or misapplies the law. Kremer v. State , 2020 ND 132, ¶ 5, 945 N.W.2d 279. An abuse of discretion occurs when the court's legal discretion is not exercised in the interest of justice. Dodge , at ¶ 13. We are reluctant to order a guilty plea be withdrawn without evidence the defendant did not understand the nature of the agreement or sentencing recommendation. State v. Craig , 2020 ND 80, ¶ 10, 941 N.W.2d 539.

[¶8] Rule 11(a)(2), N.D.R.Crim.P., governs conditional guilty pleas and states:

With the consent of the court and the prosecuting attorney, a defendant may enter a conditional plea of guilty, reserving in writing the right to have an appellate court review an adverse determination of a specified pretrial motion. The defendant, any defendant's attorney, and the prosecuting attorney must consent in writing to a conditional plea filed with the court. If the court accepts the conditional plea, it must enter an order. The resulting judgment must specify it is conditional. A defendant who prevails on appeal must be allowed to withdraw the plea.

[¶9] Whether the motion was made under Rule 11(a)(2) or Rule 11(d) is critical to proper resolution of Watson's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Watson moved to withdraw his guilty plea in the Stark County case after he was sentenced and the judgment was affirmed on appeal, arguing:

Watson plead guilty following his conviction in Golden Valley County on similar charges. His reason for pleading guilty was contingent on the fact that he was convicted in Golden Valley County. He also wanted to save the State, as well as his family the stigma of going through another trial. He also was led to believe that pleading guilty on this charge really wouldn't matter because any sentence that he would receive would run concurrently and in conjunction with any sentence that he would receive in the Golden Valley County case. In fact, sentencing for all three county cases was held on the same date of March 13, 2018. Because Golden Valley County case 17-2017-CR-34 was eventually overturned by the North Dakota Supreme Court, Watson should be allowed to withdraw his guilty pleas in Stark County (Case No. 45-2017-CR-00596) and Hettinger County (Case No. 21-2017-CR-00030).

At a hearing on the motion, Watson testified he pled guilty in the Stark County case so his sentence would run concurrent with his sentence in Golden Valley County, and he believed the guilty pleas would be withdrawn if the Golden Valley County case was overturned on appeal because everything was contingent on the Golden Valley County conviction.

[¶10] The district court denied Watson's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The court made oral findings during the hearing on the motion and also issued a written order. The oral and written findings are not inconsistent and we may consider both the court's oral and written findings in support of its decision. See Clarke v. Taylor , 2019 ND 251, ¶ 9, 934 N.W.2d 414. At the close of the hearing, the court concluded as follows: "I don't find that there's any manifest injustice and he did not prevail on the appeal which is, on these particular cases, the Court's decision on it was upheld; therefore, I am denying the Motion." The court's subsequent written order stated the plea in the Stark County case was an Alford plea and the only condition on the guilty plea disclosed or evident to the court was the appeal related to the speedy trial request in this case. The written order concluded:

The only issue or condition for the appeal disclosed, or evident to the Court, was the issues surrounding the speedy trial request for this County. No specific condition was disclosed to this Court in this case, that it was conditioned on whether the Defendant was successful on any grounds of an appeal in another county.

[¶11] Watson argues, and the dissent agrees, that the district court erred by denying the motion under Rule 11(a)(2) instead of determining whether there was a manifest injustice under Rule 11(d). To the extent there may be ambiguity in the legal basis for the district court's decision, we may consider the context in which the district court expressed its decision and in particular the arguments that were presented to it that led to its decision. See Caster v. State , 2019 ND 187, ¶¶ 6-7, 931 N.W.2d 223. Here, we believe the transcript of the hearing provides sufficient context to show that the district court denied the motion because it found no manifest injustice under Rule 11(d).

[¶12] At the hearing on the motion to withdraw Watson's plea of guilty, Watson's attorney and both State's Attorneys argued manifest injustice under Rule 11(d). Watson's attorney argued:

Now, as we've stated this -- Defendant has a burden of proving withdrawal is necessary to conduct a manifest injustice. We believe that there is, and has been, a manifest injustice occurred in the fact that -- the one case that he did go to trial on was overturned by the North Dakota Supreme Court.

The Stark County State's Attorney responded:

So I don't believe there's any manifest injustice. In fact, I believe the record is quite clear and any belief that this defendant had, based on what we're hearing today, is mistaken and was never considered by me, that I can recall.

The Hettinger County State's Attorney responded:

North Dakota rule of Criminal Procedure 11 only allows a withdrawal of a plea before the court accepts it for this new and improved reason: after the Court imposes sentence, then he has to show a manifest injustice, and simply making a trial decision, a tactical decision, doesn't qualify as manifest injustice if it turns out that was a bad decision because one of the conditions is reversed.

He went on to argue the motion was untimely under Rule 11(d)(3) because the state would be prejudiced by the delay:

[I]t has been seven years since the events occurred in Hettinger County, as I read the Felony Information that was filed. Based on Marcy's Law, I have a juvenile victim that is most likely an adult. I have no idea where she is. And it's a manifest injustice to the victim, under Marcy's Law, that this had no finality. Waiting all of this time to raise the issue when there now is no evidence to support it, other than Mr. Watson's uncorroborated statements, is just patently manifestly unjust

...