Poole v. State

North Dakota Supreme Court

Poole v. State

2020 ND 138, 945 N.W.2d 264

CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court

DecidedJune 29, 2020

Docket20200012

StatusPublished

This text of 2020 ND 138 (Poole v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering North Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Poole v. State, 2020 ND 138, 945 N.W.2d 264 (N.D. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

Filed 06/29/20 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2020 ND 138

Donald Ross Poole, III, Petitoner and Appellant v. State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee

No. 20200012

Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, the Honorable Wade L. Webb, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

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

Tanya J. Martinez, Assistant State’s Attorney, Fargo, ND, for respondent and appellee. Poole v. State No. 20200012

[¶1] Poole was charged with and pleaded guilty to carrying a concealed weapon, in violation of N.D.C.C. § 62.1-04-02. Poole filed an application for post-conviction relief, seeking withdrawal of his guilty plea. Poole contends his plea was not made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently because, before accepting his plea of guilty, the district court failed to inquire into the specifics of his plea agreement and failed to find a sufficient factual basis for his guilty plea. The district court dismissed Poole’s application.

[¶2] We summarily affirm the district court’s order under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Poole’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea because a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent plea was entered and accepted with a sufficient factual basis. The district court personally addressed Poole prior to his plea of guilty to ensure the plea was voluntary and not coerced. See State v. Yost, 2018 ND 157, ¶ 21, 914 N.W.2d 508. A sufficient factual basis was established on the record when the district court described allegations which satisfied the specific crime and verified that Poole understood he was admitting the allegations. See State v. Glaser, 2015 ND 31, ¶ 30, 858 N.W.2d 920. We affirm.

[¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Lisa Fair McEvers Gerald W. VandeWalle Jerod E. Tufte Daniel J. Crothers

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Filed 06/29/20 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2020 ND 138

Donald Ross Poole, III, Petitoner and Appellant v. State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee

No. 20200012

Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, the Honorable Wade L. Webb, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

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

Tanya J. Martinez, Assistant State’s Attorney, Fargo, ND, for respondent and appellee. Poole v. State No. 20200012

[¶1] Poole was charged with and pleaded guilty to carrying a concealed weapon, in violation of N.D.C.C. § 62.1-04-02. Poole filed an application for post-conviction relief, seeking withdrawal of his guilty plea. Poole contends his plea was not made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently because, before accepting his plea of guilty, the district court failed to inquire into the specifics of his plea agreement and failed to find a sufficient factual basis for his guilty plea. The district court dismissed Poole’s application.

[¶2] We summarily affirm the district court’s order under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Poole’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea because a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent plea was entered and accepted with a sufficient factual basis. The district court personally addressed Poole prior to his plea of guilty to ensure the plea was voluntary and not coerced. See State v. Yost, 2018 ND 157, ¶ 21, 914 N.W.2d 508. A sufficient factual basis was established on the record when the district court described allegations which satisfied the specific crime and verified that Poole understood he was admitting the allegations. See State v. Glaser, 2015 ND 31, ¶ 30, 858 N.W.2d 920. We affirm.

[¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Lisa Fair McEvers Gerald W. VandeWalle Jerod E. Tufte Daniel J. Crothers

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2020 ND 138, 945 N.W.2d 264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/poole-v-state-nd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack