State v. Storbakken (1976)

In State v. Storbakken, 246 N.W.2d 78 (N.D.1976), a guilty plea was challenged “solely because the trial judge did not restate Storbakken’s constitutional rights eo nomine [by name] at the time he accepted the plea, and because the trial judge did not follow the exact format of questioning spelled out in Rule 11 of the North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure.” State v. Storbakken, 246 N.W.2d 78, 82 (N.D.1976).

The North Dakota Supreme Court, in State v. Storbakken, 246 N.W.2d 78, 83 (1976), held that “Neither Rule 11 nor compliance with Boykin due process standards states that the trial judge must specifically inform a defendant, eo nomine, of his rights he waives by pleading guilty. [Citations omitted.] It is sufficient to satisfy due process that such knowledge on the part of the defendant is clearly reflected from the whole record, not just the interrogation of the defendant by…

State v. Storbakken , 246 N.W.2d 78, 82 (N.D. 1976).

See Retzlaff v. Grand Forks Public School District No. 1, 424 N.W.2d 637, 640 (N.D.1988); State v. Storbakken, 246 N.W.2d 78, 83 (N.D.1976).

The procedure used by the Fargo municipal court in this case substantially complied with Rule 11 of the North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure. [3] As we stated in State v. Storbakken, 246 N.W.2d 78, 84 (N.D.1976), "While inquiry must be fully developed on the record, it need not assume any predetermined, ritualistic form to conform with Rule 11, but rather the `* * * [proper scope of the examination] of the defendant will in each case depend upon the complexity of the cha…

I The law with respect to guilty pleas is well settled. 3 In State v. Storbakken, 246 N.W.2d 78, 82 (N.D.1976), we stated: “There are federal guidelines to follow when considering guilty pleas.

State v. Storbakken, 246 N.W.2d 78, 81 (N.D. 1976).

In State v. Storbakken, 246 N.W.2d 78, 81 (N.D. 1976), the district court, among other things, relied upon Storbakken’s courtroom demeanor in determining Storbakken was competent to plead guilty.

An Alford plea is a final plea of guilty, and “ ‘[a] plea of guilty is more than a confession which admits that the accused did various acts; it is itself a conviction; noth *200 ing remains but to give judgment and determine punishment.’ ” State v. Storbakken, 246 N.W.2d 78, 82 (N.D.1976) (quoting Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242-243 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969)).

State v. Storbakken, 246 N.W.2d 78, 81 (N.D.1976) (stating that such an inquiry is a requirement of the constitutional due process standard enunciated by Pate ).

See State v. Parisien, 469 N.W.2d 563, 565-66 (N.D.1991); State v. Storbakken, 246 N.W.2d 78, 83 (N.D.1976). [¶ 9] Beckman argues the trial court violated Rule 11(c), N.D.R.Crim.P., because it did not inquire as to whether the plea resulted from discussions between her attorney and the State. [¶ 10] Rule 11(c), N.D.R.Crim.P., provides: (c) Insuring that the plea is voluntary.

State v. Hagemann, 326 N.W.2d 861, 866 (N.D.1982); State v. Storbakken, 246 N.W.2d 78, 84 (N.D.1976).

State v. Storbakken, 246 N.W.2d 78, 84 (N.D.1976).

State v. Storbakken, 246 N.W.2d 78, 84 (N.D.1976).

See State v. Storbakken, 246 N.W.2d 78 (N.D.1976). 35.

Id.; see also State v. Storbakken, 246 N.W.2d 78, 82 (N.D. 1976); Moore v. State, 2013 ND 214, ¶ 11 , 839 N.W.2d 834 .

See State v. Storbakken, 246 N.W.2d 78, 81 (N.D. 1976).

See State v. Storbakken, 246 N.W.2d 78, 81 (N.D.1976) (based on record before trial court, there was no “reason to doubt” the defendant’s competency).