Sign Up for Vincent AI
State v. Cox, 20160228
Leah J. Viste, Assistant State's Attorney, P.O. Box 2806, Fargo, N.D. 58108–2806, for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.
Russell J. Myhre, P.O. Box 475, Valley City, N.D. 58072, for defendant and appellant; submitted on brief.
[¶ 1] Michael Cox appeals from a criminal judgment entered after he pled guilty to assault. Cox argues his guilty plea was involuntary and the case should be remanded to the district court for a decision on his motions to withdraw his guilty plea. We affirm the judgment.
[¶ 2] On January 26, 2016, Cox was charged with aggravated assault, a felony. The State alleged Cox willfully caused serious bodily injury to another by striking an individual in the head with a full can of beer and breaking the individual's nose and orbital bones.
[¶ 3] At a May 3, 2016, dispositional conference Cox informed the district court that he had not received all of the discovery he requested from the State. The court advised Cox to discuss the matter with his attorney.
[¶ 4] Cox subsequently entered a plea agreement and the information was amended reducing the charge to misdemeanor assault. Cox pled guilty on May 12, 2016, and the court sentenced Cox to one hundred nine days of incarceration with credit for one hundred nine days served. The court also waived all fees. On May 12, 2016, a criminal judgment was entered. On June 9, 2016, Cox filed a notice of appeal.
[¶ 5] Cox claims he attempted three times to file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea but the motions were rejected by the clerk of court and the district court did not determine whether he is entitled to withdraw his guilty plea. Cox's appendix includes copies of three handwritten motions to withdraw his guilty plea dated June 7, 2016; June 15, 2016; and June 16, 2016. Each purported motion contains a stamp stating, "This document does not conform to N.D.R.Ct. 3.1(b) and will not be considered by the Court unless signed by your attorney of record in this case." The stamps are dated and signed by a district court deputy clerk of court. The three motions are not included in the district court record. The court record does include the The district court did not adjudicate Cox's motions or address the State's return, presumably because the motions were never filed.
[¶ 6] On appeal, this Court advised Cox that the appendix contained documents not included in the record and that the nature of the action on the cover page of the brief referenced an unfiled motion to withdraw the guilty plea. This Court further advised Cox that documents not in the record would not be considered on appeal and that he should refer to N.D.R.App.P. 10(h) if he intended to have the documents included in the record and the motion filed in the district court. Cox did not move to correct or supplement the record, and Cox's attorney did not file a motion to withdraw the guilty plea.
[¶ 7] Cox argues he did not receive all of the discovery he requested and he could not make a knowing, intelligent and voluntary guilty plea without viewing all of the relevant information. Cox requests this Court remand his case for the district court to determine whether he is entitled to withdraw his plea.
[¶ 8] Cox's motions to withdraw his guilty plea were not filed and are not included in the record. No motions are pending. Any arguments related to withdrawing the guilty plea are raised for the first time on appeal. This Court does not address issues raised for the first time on appeal. State v. Chatman, 2015 ND 296, ¶ 22, 872 N.W.2d 595.
[¶ 9] We further note that Cox was represented by counsel when his motions were submitted to the district court for filing. Under N.D.R.Ct. 3.1(b) the motions were required to be signed by his counsel of record. The clerks of court followed N.D.R.Ct. 3.1(j) in not filing the motions. ("Documents and pleadings that do not conform to this rule may not be filed."). Therefore, no error exists upon which we can reverse and remand this matter for adjudication of Cox's non-existent motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
[¶ 10] Cox appealed from the criminal judgment, but he has not raised any issues related to the criminal judgment on appeal. Rather, Cox only requests that this case be remanded to the district court to determine whether he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. Because the district court neither filed nor ruled on those motions, we affirm the criminal judgment.
[¶ 11] Daniel J. Crothers
Lisa Fair McEvers
Carol Ronning Kapsner
[¶ 12] The Honorable Jerod E. Tufte was not a member of the Court when this case was heard and did not participate in this decision. Surrogate Judge Dale V. Sandstrom, sitting.
[¶ 13] I agree with and have signed with the majority opinion. I write separately to point out that perhaps our rules or administrative processes should provide more flexibility in receiving records from prisoners, even if they are not properly "filed" with the court.
[¶ 14] Cox has asked this Court to remand to the district court to consider his motions to withdraw his plea. However, the only way for this Court to grant the relief requested is to exercise our authority to supervise and remand to the district court.
[¶ 15] "[T]o prevent a distortion of justice," we have treated an "[attempted appeal] as a request for us to exercise our original jurisdiction and our authority to supervise the [district] courts." Boedecker v. St. Alexius Hospital, 298 N.W.2d 372, 374 (N.D. 1980). Under N.D. Const. art. VI, § 2 and N.D.C.C. § 27–02–04, this Court has authority to issue supervisory writs. Forum Commc'ns Co. v. Paulson, 2008 ND 140, ¶ 8, 752 N.W.2d 177. Our authority to issue supervisory writs is discretionary and we exercise our original jurisdiction to issue remedial writs on a case-by-case basis, considering the circumstances of each case. Forum, at ¶ 8."We have recognized that a supervisory writ is to be used ‘with caution and forbearance for the furtherance of justice, and to secure order and regularity in judicial proceedings when none of the ordinary remedies provided by law are adequate.’ " Spence v. North Dakota District Court, 292 N.W.2d 53, 58 (N.D. 1980) (quoting Olson v. N.D. Dist. Ct., 271 N.W.2d 574, 578 (N.D. 1978) (emphasis omitted)).
[¶ 16] It is not necessary for this Court to exercise its supervisory authority, because Cox has an ordinary and adequate remedy available. It appears Cox was attempting to withdraw his guilty plea after the court imposed sentence under N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(d)(2), which allows withdrawal only when necessary to correct a manifest injustice. Cox can either request his attorney file the motion to withdraw or, in the alternative, he can dismiss his attorney and file the motion himself. His burden of proof remains the same. Cox found himself in this situation by not utilizing the services of his attorney. Instead, Cox attempted to file three handwritten motions to withdraw his guilty plea. The three motions are not included in the record, but Cox included copies in his appendix on appeal. The motions are dated June 7, 2016; June 15, 2016; and June 16, 2016; each are titled "Motion to Withdraw Plea" and each indicate in different language that Cox seeks to withdraw his guilty plea. Each motion contains a stamp stating, "This document does not conform to N.D.R.Ct. 3.1(b) and will not be considered by the Court unless signed by your attorney of record in this case." The stamps are dated and signed by a deputy district court clerk.
[¶ 17] North Dakota Rule of Court 3.1(b) provides:
(b) Signature. All pleadings and other documents of a party represented by an attorney must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's individual name and contain the attorney's address, telephone number, e-mail address for electronic service, and State Board of Law Examiners identification number. All pleadings and other documents of a party who is not represented by an attorney must be signed by the party and contain the party's address and telephone number.
[¶ 18] Cox was represented by counsel when he attempted to file his motions to withdraw his guilty plea. When Cox submitted his first motion on June 7 he still was represented by trial counsel Laura Reynolds. This is evident because Reynolds filed Cox's notice of appeal on June 10, 2016. Cox also was represented on June 15 and 16 because the record contains a "Request to assign case to appellate attorney" from the North Dakota Commission...
Try vLex and Vincent AI for free
Start a free trialExperience vLex's unparalleled legal AI
Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Try vLex and Vincent AI for free
Start a free trialStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting