from the District Court of Ward County, North Central
Judicial District, the Honorable Douglas L. Mattson, Judge.
Christopher W. Nelson, Assistant State's Attorney, Minot,
ND, for plaintiff and appellee.
Benjamin D. Migdal, Minot, ND, for defendant and appellant.
Walle, Chief Justice.
Joshua Michael Peterson appealed from an order denying his
motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We conclude the district
court did not abuse its discretion in denying Peterson's
motion. We affirm.
On April 30, 2015, the State filed a complaint charging
Peterson with class B felony burglary in violation of
N.D.C.C. §§ 12.1-22-02; 12.1-22-02(2)(b); and
12.1-32-01. Peterson pleaded guilty to one count of burglary
at a June 10, 2015 change of plea hearing. Early in the
hearing, the district court mistakenly referred to the
burglary charge as a class C felony. The court shortly
corrected itself and asked Peterson if he still wished to
plead guilty. After discussion with his attorney, Peterson
stated he still wished to plead guilty.
The State provided a factual basis for the plea, stating
Peterson fled the scene of the crime in a manner that
appeared to be an attempt to strike the arresting officer
with a vehicle. Peterson's attorney stated:
Your Honor, just in regard to the vehicle. He was fleeing the
scene. He wasn't directing anything at an officer, but he
was fleeing the scene in his vehicle. And his vehicle was
eventually brought to a halt.
agreed with his counsel's statement. The court found
Peterson knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered
the guilty plea and there was a sufficient factual basis.
Peterson received 10 years' imprisonment, with all but
In September 2015, the State moved to amend the judgment to
reflect that Peterson pleaded guilty under N.D.C.C. §
12.1-22-02(2)(b) and the requirement that he serve
eighty-five percent of his sentence under N.D.C.C. §
12.1-32-09.1 applied. The court issued an amended criminal
judgment on February 16, 2016, which this Court upheld on
appeal. See State v. Peterson, 2016 ND 192, 886
N.W.2d 71. Many of the issues raised in the current appeal
were peripherally touched upon in that appeal. Id.
On February 29, 2016, the court entered a second amended
judgment changing the listed statute violated from N.D.C.C.
§ 12.1-22-02 to N.D.C.C. § 12.1-22-02(2)(b).
Peterson filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea on July
6, 2018. After a hearing, the court denied the motion.
On appeal, Peterson argues his motion to withdraw his guilty
plea should have been granted because the sentencing court
did not sufficiently comply with N.D.R.Crim.P. 11. Peterson
also argues his attorney's failure to inform him that the
eighty-five percent rule attached to a conviction under
N.D.C.C. § 12.1-22-02(2)(b) fell below the objective
standard of reasonable representation. In the alternative,
Peterson argues manifest injustice requires withdrawal of his
This Court reviews a district court's denial of a motion
to withdraw a guilty plea under the abuse of discretion
standard. State v. Feist, 2006 ND 21, ¶ 22, 708
N.W.2d 870. A district court abuses its discretion when it
acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or capricious manner, or
misinterprets or misapplies the law. Id. The
provisions of N.D.R.Crim.P. 11 "are mandatory and
substantial compliance is required to ensure a defendant
knowingly and voluntarily enters a guilty plea."
State v. Yost, 2018 ND 157, ¶ 17, 914 N.W.2d
508. "The purpose of the procedure outlined in Rule
11(b) is to ensure that the defendant is fully aware of the
consequences of a guilty plea before he enters his
plea." Id. "N.D.R.Crim.P. 11 does not
require the trial court's advice to follow a ritualistic,