AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was charged with driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor (DUI) as a special third-degree felony, based on having multiple prior DUI convictions. The State offered a plea deal, proposing a guilty plea to a sixth DUI offense in exchange for recommending the mandatory minimum sentence. The Defendant did not accept this offer, instead pleading guilty with the understanding that the number of prior DUIs would be determined at a later hearing. The district court later ruled that all contested prior DUIs would count, leading to the Defendant being sentenced for a sixth DUI offense. The Defendant sought to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing that he expected a recommendation for the minimum sentence based on his plea.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the plea agreement included a promise by the State to recommend the minimum sentence for a sixth DUI offense and sought to withdraw the guilty plea for either imposition of the minimum sentence or a re-sentencing with the State held to its promise.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Contended that no such promise was made as part of the plea agreement and that the Defendant had not accepted the initial offer which included the recommendation for the minimum sentence.

Legal Issues

• Whether the State breached a promise made as part of a plea agreement to recommend the minimum sentence for a sixth DUI offense.
• Whether the Defendant is entitled to withdraw his guilty plea based on the alleged breach of the plea agreement by the State.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to deny the Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

Reasons

• Per Bohnhoff, J. (French and Kiehne, JJ., concurring):
  The Court found that the State did not breach any promise regarding the plea agreement because the Defendant did not accept the initial offer that included the recommendation for the minimum sentence. Instead, the Defendant contested the number of prior DUIs, which led to a different plea agreement without any sentencing recommendation from the State (paras 8-9).
  The Court also noted that the Defendant failed to disclose any promise by the State to recommend the minimum sentence during the plea proceedings. The Defendant's trial counsel only referred to a "standard practice" rather than a specific agreement, which did not amount to a disclosure of any promise by the State (para 9).
  The Court declined to review the Defendant's claim for fundamental error, as the doctrine of fundamental error does not apply where a defendant fails to alert the district court to a promise by the State. Additionally, the Court found that the record did not support the Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, suggesting that such a claim should be pursued in a collateral proceeding (paras 10-12).