State v. Guthmiller , 924 N.W.2d 785 ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                Filed 3/18/19 by Clerk of Supreme Court
    IN THE SUPREME COURT
    STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
    
    2019 ND 85
    State of North Dakota,                                     Plaintiff and Appellee
    v.
    Jonathan James Guthmiller,                              Defendant and Appellant
    No. 20180225
    Appeal from the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central
    Judicial District, the Honorable John A. Thelen, Judge.
    AFFIRMED.
    Opinion of the Court by Crothers, Justice.
    Andrew C. Eyre, Grand Forks County State’s Attorney Office, Grand Forks,
    ND, for plaintiff and appellee.
    Charles J. Sheeley, Fargo, ND, for defendant and appellant.
    State v. Guthmiller
    No. 20180225
    Crothers, Justice.
    [¶1]   Jonathan Guthmiller appeals from a criminal judgment after he pled guilty to
    luring a minor by computer. Guthmiller argues the district court abused its discretion
    when denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, and erred by failing to advise
    him of a mandatory period of probation. We affirm the criminal judgment.
    I
    [¶2]   In April 2017 the State charged Guthmiller with luring a minor by computer
    after an investigation uncovered inappropriate sexual messages and photographs
    exchanged on the social media platform Snapchat between Guthmiller and a fifteen-
    year-old.
    [¶3]   Guthmiller entered a plea of not guilty. The district court scheduled trial for
    September 26, 2017. The parties engaged in negotiations before trial and on
    September 26, 2017, Guthmiller signed a plea agreement entering a plea of guilty to
    luring a minor by computer. At the change of plea hearing the district court
    confirmed Guthmiller was aware he was changing his plea pursuant to an agreement
    and advised he could proceed to trial if he or the court did not accept the plea
    agreement. The court explained Guthmiller would not be able to withdraw his plea
    unless the court refused to sentence him in accordance with the agreement.
    Guthmiller affirmed his decision to accept the plea agreement. The district court
    verified Guthmiller was freely and voluntarily entering his guilty plea and asked
    questions to ensure Guthmiller understood his rights. Guthmiller again told the court
    he desired to plead guilty.
    [¶4]   Guthmiller told the court his counsel’s representation was satisfactory and he
    was not under the influence of any intoxicants. The State provided the factual basis
    1
    for the Alford plea and Guthmiller agreed the State could prove the factual basis
    beyond a reasonable doubt. The district court accepted Guthmiller’s guilty plea.
    [¶5]   The district court ordered a presentence investigation report and sex offender
    evaluation, and scheduled sentencing for January 2018. The sentencing hearing was
    continued twice. Guthmiller moved to withdraw his guilty plea based on possible
    new information about purported activity on his Snapchat account. The district court
    requested briefing on the matter and on April 27, 2018, conducted a hearing on the
    motion to withdraw. The court denied the motion, finding Guthmiller failed to show
    a “fair and just” reason to withdraw the guilty plea. The district court also found the
    State would be prejudiced by allowing Guthmiller to withdraw his plea. Guthmiller
    was sentenced on May 14, 2018, and appealed on June 1, 2018.
    II
    [¶6]   Rule 11(d), N.D.R.Crim.P., governs the withdrawal of a guilty plea and
    provides differing standards depending on the timing of a motion. State v. Lium,
    
    2008 ND 232
    , ¶ 11, 
    758 N.W.2d 711
    . A defendant may withdraw a guilty plea at any
    time before the court accepts the plea. N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(d)(1)(A). A defendant also
    may withdraw a guilty plea after the court accepts the plea, but before sentencing, if
    the court rejects a plea agreement or if the defendant demonstrates a “fair and just”
    reason for the withdrawal. N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(d)(1)(B)(i)-(ii). “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 decision whether a manifest injustice exists for
    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.” State v. Bates, 
    2007 ND 15
    , ¶
    6, 
    726 N.W.2d 595
    . A court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary,
    unreasonable, or unconscionable manner, or it misinterprets or misapplies the law.
    State v. Pixler, 
    2010 ND 105
    , ¶ 7, 
    783 N.W.2d 9
    .
    2
    III
    [¶7]   Guthmiller argues possible new information about purported activity on his
    Snapchat account is a “fair and just” reason to withdraw the guilty plea.
    [¶8]   Before sentencing district courts should liberally allow defendants to withdraw
    a plea upon proving a fair and just supporting reason. Lium, 
    2008 ND 232
    , ¶ 13,
    
    758 N.W.2d 711
    . After establishing a fair and just reason to withdraw a plea, the
    burden shifts to the State to establish it would be prejudiced by granting the motion.
    
    Id. The State’s
    prejudice must go beyond that found in the ordinary case. 
    Id. Inquiry into
    the State’s prejudice begins only after the defendant shows a fair and just cause
    to withdraw the plea. 
    Id. [¶9] The
    Court in Lium provided a nonexhaustive list of factors to determine
    whether a defendant has “fair and just” reason for withdrawing a plea.
    “[A]mong the factors that a district court may consider in determining
    whether a fair and just reason exists to withdraw a guilty plea before
    sentencing are: (1) the amount of time that has passed between the
    entry of the plea and the motion to withdraw; (2) defendant’s assertion
    of innocence or a legally cognizable defense to the charge; (3) prejudice
    to the government; (4) whether the plea was knowing and voluntary;
    (5) whether the plea was made in compliance with Rule 11,
    N.D.R.Crim.P.; (6) whether adequate assistance of counsel was
    available to the defendant; (7) the plausibility of the reason for seeking
    to withdraw; (8) whether a plea withdrawal would waste judicial
    resources; and (9) whether the parties had reached or breached a plea
    agreement.”
    Lium, 
    2008 ND 232
    , ¶ 17, 
    758 N.W.2d 711
    .
    [¶10] Guthmiller argues his “fair and just” reason for withdrawal of his guilty plea
    relates to purported activity on his Snapchat account. Guthmiller claims someone had
    control over his account, evidenced by an immediate denial of an “add” request from
    his brother sent during a meeting in his attorney’s office.           Snapchat shows
    Guthmiller’s account was inactive for eleven months before the purported activity.
    A law enforcement guide on the Snapchat website, last updated September 21, 2018,
    explains “some deleted accounts may still have some limited information stored
    3
    depending on various factors.” Guthmiller already admitted he spoke to the victim
    via Snapchat during the time in question.
    [¶11] From the evidence, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion
    in determining information Guthmiller claimed was new evidence did not rise to the
    level of “fair and just” for purposes of withdrawing a plea.
    IV
    [¶12] Guthmiller argues the district court committed obvious error when it failed to
    inform him of the mandatory five-year probation sentence.
    [¶13] This Court will not address issues not adequately raised at the district court.
    Kalmio v. State, 
    2018 ND 182
    , ¶ 14, 
    915 N.W.2d 655
    . “If an appeal is taken in a case
    in which an evidentiary hearing was held, the appellant must order a transcript of the
    proceedings . . . [and] the order for a transcript . . . must be filed with the clerk of the
    supreme court with the notice of appeal.” N.D.R.App.R. 10(b)(1). The appellant
    assumes the risk for the failure to file a complete transcript. State v. Cook,
    
    2014 ND 18
    , ¶ 4, 
    843 N.W.2d 1
    . If the record does not allow for a meaningful and
    intelligent review of an alleged error, we will decline review of the issue. 
    Id. [¶14] Guthmiller
    submitted a supplemental brief on appeal addressing, for the first
    time, alleged obvious error when the court failed to inform him of the mandatory
    probationary period attached to his sentence. Guthmiller provided transcripts of the
    hearing for his motion to withdraw but for no other hearings. District courts often
    advise criminal defendants of their rights during prior proceedings in the case. See
    Peltier v. State, 
    2015 ND 35
    , 
    859 N.W.2d 381
    . A defendant who has been so advised
    and recalls the advice need not again be advised of those same rights during
    subsequent hearings. 
    Id. It is
    possible Guthmiller was advised of the mandatory
    probationary period during his initial appearance on April 28, 2017, or his preliminary
    hearing on June 2, 2017. Guthmiller has failed to show he was not so advised, and
    we are unable to complete a meaningful and intelligent review of the issue without a
    4
    complete record. We decline to address Guthmiller’s argument for the first time on
    appeal.
    V
    [¶15] The district court did not abuse its discretion by determining Guthmiller failed
    to show a “fair and just” reason for withdrawing his plea. We decline to address
    Guthmiller’s claim the district court obviously erred by failing to advise him of a
    mandatory period of probation. We affirm the criminal judgment.
    [¶16] Daniel J. Crothers
    Lisa Fair McEvers
    Jerod E. Tufte
    Jon J. Jensen
    Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
    5