State v. Sahel

North Dakota Supreme Court

State v. Sahel

2017 ND 239, 902 N.W.2d 733, 2017 WL 4638662, 2017 N.D. LEXIS 259

CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 17, 2017

Docket20170178

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 ND 239 (State v. Sahel) 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. Sahel, 2017 ND 239, 902 N.W.2d 733, 2017 WL 4638662, 2017 N.D. LEXIS 259 (N.D. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

[¶ 1] Abdirahman Pashir Sahel appeals from a criminal judgment entered after he pleaded guilty to gross sexual imposition and terrorizing. Sahel argues that he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea because the district court failed to comply with the requirements of N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(b). Because Sahel did not raise this issue at the district court, we review for obvious error under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b).

[¶ 2] Although the district court did not inform Sahel of all his rights under N.D.R.Crim.P. 11 at the change of plea hearing, the district court substantially complied with Rule 11 over the course of his case. See Abdi v. State, 2000 ND 64, ¶ 12, 608 N.W.2d 292 (stating that the district court “must substantially comply with the procedural requirements of [N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(b) ] to insure the defendant is entering a voluntary guilty plea”); State v. Murphy, 2014 ND 202, ¶ 9, 855 N.W.2d 647 (considering statements made at prior hearings in determining whether the defendant was informed of and understood his rights). Thus, the district court did not commit obvious error by accepting Sahel’s' guilty plea. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(8) and (7).

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

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

Per Curiam.

[¶ 1] Abdirahman Pashir Sahel appeals from a criminal judgment entered after he pleaded guilty to gross sexual imposition and terrorizing. Sahel argues that he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea because the district court failed to comply with the requirements of N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(b). Because Sahel did not raise this issue at the district court, we review for obvious error under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b).

[¶ 2] Although the district court did not inform Sahel of all his rights under N.D.R.Crim.P. 11 at the change of plea hearing, the district court substantially complied with Rule 11 over the course of his case. See Abdi v. State, 2000 ND 64, ¶ 12, 608 N.W.2d 292 (stating that the district court “must substantially comply with the procedural requirements of [N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(b) ] to insure the defendant is entering a voluntary guilty plea”); State v. Murphy, 2014 ND 202, ¶ 9, 855 N.W.2d 647 (considering statements made at prior hearings in determining whether the defendant was informed of and understood his rights). Thus, the district court did not commit obvious error by accepting Sahel’s' guilty plea. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(8) and (7).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 ND 239, 902 N.W.2d 733, 2017 WL 4638662, 2017 N.D. LEXIS 259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-sahel-nd-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack