State v. Moore

2005 ND 159
CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 27, 2005
Docket20050133
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 2005 ND 159 (State v. Moore) 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
State v. Moore, 2005 ND 159 (N.D. 2005).

Opinion

Filed 9/27/05 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2005 ND 160

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Paul Dean Oie, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20050031

Appeal from the District Court of Richland County, Southeast Judicial District, the Honorable Richard W. Grosz, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Don R. Krassin (submitted on brief), Town Centre Square, 500 Dakota Avenue, Suite 240, Wahpeton, ND 58075-4436, for defendant and appellant.

Ronald W. McBeth (submitted on brief), Assistant State’s Attorney, Law Enforcement Center, 413 3 rd Avenue N., Wahpeton, ND 58075, for plaintiff and appellee.

State v. Oie

[¶1] Paul Dean Oie appeals from a criminal judgment and commitment sentencing him to fifteen-years imprisonment, five years suspended, for two counts of Gross Sexual Imposition under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-03(2)(a).  Oie entered Alford guilty pleas, North Carolina v. Alford , 400 U.S. 25 (1970), on each count but argues that a factual basis was not established for Count Two.  The record reflects the district court made an open court inquiry into the factual basis and additionally supplemented such basis with information contained in the pre-sentence investigation report.  A factual basis is to be established to the district court’s satisfaction, Kaiser v. State , 417 N.W.2d 175, 178 (N.D. 1987), and may be provided by a pre-sentence investigation report.   Froistad v. State , 2002 ND 52, ¶ 23, 641 N.W.2d 86.  The standard of review for withdrawing a guilty plea after sentencing is “abuse of discretion.”   State v. Mortrud , 312 N.W.2d 354, 359 (N.D. 1981).

[¶2] Concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion in accepting the guilty plea and a controlling decision by this Court is dispositive, we summarily affirm the criminal judgment and commitment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (7).

[¶3] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Daniel J. Crothers

Mary Muehlen Maring

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Dale V. Sandstrom

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

Related

State v. Moore
2010 ND 229 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2010)
Everett v. State
2010 ND 226 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2010)
State v. Oie
2005 ND 160 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2005 ND 159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-moore-nd-2005.